Comment on US Record Labels Sue AI Music Generators Suno and Udio for Copyright Infringement

• avidamoeba@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Yeah, as someone who’s fought against the RIAA/MPAA copyright lobbying in my country, I think I’m on their side on this one.

  source
• ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  GPL code is the least concern, you can always just say the AI-generated code is GPL. What about training on leaked proprietary code? The training data already known to include medical records, CSAM, etc., wouldn’t be surprised if it also contained proprietary code.

  source
• sunzu@kbin.run ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  I don't know which one is better tbh

  the devil you know or the one you don't!

  source

  • grue@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Having all AI-generated code be either “viral” copyleft or illegal to use at all would certainly be better than allowing massive laundering of GPL-licensed code for exploitation in proprietary software.

    source

    • sunzu@kbin.run ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Damn i see your point here tbh...

      i am vaguely familiar with software licensing is GPL type of open source?

      source

      • grue@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        i am vaguely familiar with software licensing is GPL type of open source?

        You could say that, LOL. It’s the OG of “copyleft” licenses (the guy that made it invented the concept), although “permissive” licenses (BSD, MIT) existed before.

        “Copyleft” and “permissive” are the two major categories of Free Software (a.k.a. “open source”, although that term has different connotations) license. The difference between them is that “copyleft” requires future modifications by people other than the copyright holders to be released under the same terms, while “permissive” does not. In other words, “copyleft” protects the freedom of future users to control their computer by being able to modify the software on it, while “permissive” maximizes the freedom of other developers to do whatever they want with the code (including using it in proprietary apps, to exploit people).

        See also: www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

        source
    • realitista@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      If they are using GPL code, shouldn’t they also release their source code?

      source

      • grue@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        That’s the argument I would be making, but it certainly isn’t Microsoft’s (Copilot), OpenAI’s (Codex), etc’s position: they think the output is sufficiently laundered from the GPL training data so as not to constitute a derivative work (which means none of the original licenses – “open source” or otherwise – would apply, and the recipient could do whatever they want).

        source