It’s weird that your take away is “Meta needs to get it” and not “Clearly, these laws work for no one”. You don’t get better copyright laws by cheering for the copyright companies.
It’s weird that your take away is “Meta needs to get it” and not “Clearly, these laws work for no one”. You don’t get better copyright laws by cheering for the copyright companies.
SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 hours ago
Literally the first thing I said was regards to more sensible copyright making this all a moot point but you do you.
Artisian@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
I read this as setting precedent that others couldn’t. Court cases like this are one way to make it possible for everyone to break an absurd law.
SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 hours ago
Precedent only applies equally if we are able to prove the same in court. Are you going to need petabytes of pirated data to train your AI? Can you afford a team of top quality lawyers to fight your case and prove you were training a small locally-hosted AI at home? Do you think Meta, of all companies, really is fighting for you to be able to do the same as them? You will still get taken to court, you will still have to fight your case, “precedent” isn’t an automatic get out of jail free card. Do you have the money to fight massive copyright holders with endless money? Of course you don’t, none of us do.
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
And unlike Meta, you will be thrown in prison like Jeremiah Perkins.
Even if found completely guilty, the worst that will happen is Meta has to pay a fine: which means nothing because any fine is rolled into the cost of doing business. Meta knows it is stupid to not break the law.
lmmarsano@group.lt 12 hours ago
Precedent means we can cite it, so yes, this helps a bit. The rest you wrote is a fair bit of assumption or unnecessary: evidence to back your points would help. Otherwise, it just looks like inconclusive defeatism.
Grimy@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
We don’t get better laws if everyone is cheering for the copyright industry. Everything after your first point goes against that. Goliath, the same one that beat up Aaron, finally has a match in his own weight category, and you are hoping he wins.
SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 hours ago
What kind of “better law” do you think will come out of this? That regular people like us will be able to share freely?
You think that the law being applied on poor people but not on the wealthy is a healthy way to get a better law?
Get the fuck real and nobody is asking for the copyright cabal to win as much as we are saying “look, if this is the how the law is going to be applied, apply it evenly, don’t just fuck over poor people but give the wealthy a pass.”
And poor people who don’t have the weight and money of Meta aren’t going to be able to prove that they need the same amount of data to train an LLM so they probably will still have the law held against them. Get fucking real man.
What country do you think you live in? One where laws are applied evenly or rationally? Or one where fascists have taken over the god damned government? Because guess what it’s the latter and the laws are effectively meaningless for the wealthy but still held against the poor. Sure, if that’s what you want, go for it, but it damn sure won’t suddenly get us better laws or let regular people torrent without worry. Congress has been deadlocked for decades and does nothing but hurt common people and give corporations a ticket to do whatever and you think better laws will come out of this? Seriously, once again, get fucking real.
Grimy@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
Encouraging laws you don’t like does nothing but cement them. We are currently, as a society, begging lawmakers for harder copyright laws.
I get the Justice system sucks but making the wrong laws stronger does not make it better.
Think about what you are saying is all, you tend to write long elaborate speeches on why copyright deserves to win. There is being critical AI, and then there’s being a mouthpiece. I’m not trying to be mean here, sorry.