AI industry horrified to face largest copyright class action ever certified
Technology
89
Beiträge
50
Kommentatoren
0
Aufrufe
-
This post did not contain any content.
Unfortunately, this will probably lead to nothing: in our world, only the poor seem to be punished for stealing. Well, corporations always get away with everything, so we sit on the couch and shout "YES!!!" for the fact that they are trying to console us with this.
-
The purpose of copyright is to drive works into the public domain. Works are only supposed to remain exclusive to the artist for a very limited time, not a "century of publishing history".
The copyright industry should lose this battle. Copyright exclusivity should be shorter than patent exclusivity.
Shutup thief. Go to jail.
-
The status quo is a giant fucking problem, and has been for decades.
The rest of your comment is alarmist nonsense.
And you’re just crying that you can’t steal.
-
This post did not contain any content.
So, the US now has a choice: rescue AI and fix their fucked up copyright system, or rescue the fucked up copyright system and fuck up AI companies. I'm interested in the decision.
I'd personally say that the copyright system needs to be fixed anyway, because it's currently just a club for the RIAA&MPAA to wield against everyone (remember the lawsuits against single persons with alleged damages in the millions for downloading a few songs? or the current tries to fuck over the internet archive?). Should the copyright side win, then we can say goodbye to things like the internet archive or open source-AI; copyright holders will then be the AI-companies, since they have the content.
-
Good. Burn it down. Bankrupt them.
If it's so "critical to national security" then nationalize it.
the "burn it down" variant would only lead to the scenario where the copyright holders become the AI companies, since they have the content to train it. AI will not go away, it might change ownership to someone worse tho.
nationalizing sounds better; even better were to put in under UNESCO-stewardship.
-
Let's go baby! The law is the law, and it applies to everybody
If the "genie doesn't go back in the bottle", make him pay for what he's stealing.
This would mean the copyright holders like Disney are now the AI companies, because they have the content to train them. That's even worse, man.
-
the "burn it down" variant would only lead to the scenario where the copyright holders become the AI companies, since they have the content to train it. AI will not go away, it might change ownership to someone worse tho.
nationalizing sounds better; even better were to put in under UNESCO-stewardship.
Hard to imagine worse than the insane techno-feudalists who currently own it.
-
AI coding tools are using the exact same backends as AI fiction writing tools, so it would hurt the fledgling vibe coder profession (which according to proper software developers should not be allowed to exist at all).
The same goes for the Internet Archive - if scraping is illegal, than the Internet Archive is as well.
-
As Anthropic argued, it now "faces hundreds of billions of dollars in potential damages liability at trial in four months" based on a class certification rushed at "warp speed" that involves "up to seven million potential claimants, whose works span a century of publishing history," each possibly triggering a $150,000 fine.
So you knew what stealing the copyrighted works could result in, and your defense is that you stole too much? That's not how that works.
If scraping is illegal, so is the Internet Archive, and that would be an immense loss for the world.
-
threatens to "financially ruin" the entire AI industry
No. Just the LLM industry and AI slop image and video generation industries. All of the legitimate uses of AI (drug discovery, finding solar panel improvements, self driving vehicles, etc) are all completely immune from this lawsuit, because they're not dependent on stealing other people's work.
But it would also mean that the Internet Archive is illegal, even tho they don't profit, but if scraping the internet is a copyright violation, then they are as guilty as Anthropic.
-
But it would also mean that the Internet Archive is illegal, even tho they don't profit, but if scraping the internet is a copyright violation, then they are as guilty as Anthropic.
IA doesn't make any money off the content. Not that LLM companies do, but that's what they'd want.
-
No it won't. Just their companies. Which are the ones making slop. If your AI does something actually useful it will survive.
You know, if they lose, their tech will probably become the property of copyright holders, which means your new AI Overlord has the first name Walt.
-
This would mean the copyright holders like Disney are now the AI companies, because they have the content to train them. That's even worse, man.
It’s not because they would only train on things they own which is an absolute tiny fraction of everything that everyone owns. It’s like complaining that a rich person gets to enjoy their lavish estate when the alternative is they get to use everybody’s home in the world.
-
Hard to imagine worse than the insane techno-feudalists who currently own it.
believe me, Disney is fucking ruthless in comparison to Anthropic.
-
IA doesn't make any money off the content. Not that LLM companies do, but that's what they'd want.
Do you think that would rescue the IA from the type of people who made the IA already pull 300k books?
-
It’s not because they would only train on things they own which is an absolute tiny fraction of everything that everyone owns. It’s like complaining that a rich person gets to enjoy their lavish estate when the alternative is they get to use everybody’s home in the world.
do you know how much content disney has? go scrolling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_the_Walt_Disney_Company
e: that's the tip of the iceberg, because if they band together with others from the MPAA & RIAA, they can suffocate the entire Movie, Book and Music world with it. -
IA doesn't make any money off the content. Not that LLM companies do, but that's what they'd want.
Profit (or even revenue) is not required for it to be considered an infringement, in the current legal framework.
-
Hilarious.
"ooh, so sorry, but your LLM was trained on proprietary documents stolen from several major law firms, and they are all suing you now"
-
do you know how much content disney has? go scrolling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_the_Walt_Disney_Company
e: that's the tip of the iceberg, because if they band together with others from the MPAA & RIAA, they can suffocate the entire Movie, Book and Music world with it.good, then I can just ignore Disney instead of EVERYTHING else.
-
do you know how much content disney has? go scrolling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_the_Walt_Disney_Company
e: that's the tip of the iceberg, because if they band together with others from the MPAA & RIAA, they can suffocate the entire Movie, Book and Music world with it.They have 0.2T in assets the world has around 660T in assets which as I said before is a tiny fraction. Obviously both hold a lot of assets that aren’t worthwhile to AI training such as theme parks but when you consider a single movie that might be worth millions or billions has the same benefit for AI training as another movie worth thousands. the amount of assets Disney owned is not nearly as relevant as you are making it out to be
