Paul McCartney and Dua Lipa urge UK Prime Minister to rethink his AI copyright plans. A new law could soon allow AI companies to use copyrighted material without permission.
Technology
66
Beiträge
44
Kommentatoren
0
Aufrufe
-
This post did not contain any content.
So did this UK "centre-left" party turn out to be a Trojan horse or what? They've dismantled trans rights. They plan on using AI thought police to 'predict' future crimes and criminals. And now they want multibillion corporations to have free access to anyone's work without compensation.
If I hadn't looked this political party up on Wikipedia, by this point I would be assuming that they're a bunch of conservative wankers on Elon Musk's payroll.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Pretty funny that Dua Lipa is so opposed to this when her entire catalogue sounds like blatant ripoffs of other people's music.
-
So did this UK "centre-left" party turn out to be a Trojan horse or what? They've dismantled trans rights. They plan on using AI thought police to 'predict' future crimes and criminals. And now they want multibillion corporations to have free access to anyone's work without compensation.
If I hadn't looked this political party up on Wikipedia, by this point I would be assuming that they're a bunch of conservative wankers on Elon Musk's payroll.
I looked up the history of UK Parliament a while ago. Since conception there have only ever been two parties in charge: Conservative (used to be called Liberal) and Labour. Before merges and changes the main groups were called Whigs and Tories, both of which primarily became Conservative. Modern Liberals brought back the original Liberal Party, while Liberal Democrats were formed by part of Labour and part of the modern Liberals. They are pretty much identical in terms of actual change.
The only show of promise is that the Green Party have secured a massive increase in power, and there might actually be a chance of a difference in the next decade.
-
Pretty funny that Dua Lipa is so opposed to this when her entire catalogue sounds like blatant ripoffs of other people's music.
It's pop electric music. Idk what you expect from it. But a quick look at her history shows she does a lot of collabs with different people and has at least one number one album. For what's that worth. Your comment just sounds like a high schooler upset that people like other types of music.
My favorite part of her wiki page is this:
"Genesis" quotes and gets its title from the first book of the bible, which it shares a name with.
You're going to waste your time criticizing something like this?
-
In theory, could you then just register as an AI company and pirate anything?
No, because training an AI is not "pirating."
-
No, because training an AI is not "pirating."
If they are training the AI with copyrighted data that they aren't paying for, then yes, they are doing the same thing as traditional media piracy. While I think piracy laws have been grossly blown out of proportion by entities such as the RIAA and MPAA, these AI companies shouldn't get a pass for doing what Joe Schmoe would get fined thousands of dollars for on a smaller scale.
-
I looked up the history of UK Parliament a while ago. Since conception there have only ever been two parties in charge: Conservative (used to be called Liberal) and Labour. Before merges and changes the main groups were called Whigs and Tories, both of which primarily became Conservative. Modern Liberals brought back the original Liberal Party, while Liberal Democrats were formed by part of Labour and part of the modern Liberals. They are pretty much identical in terms of actual change.
The only show of promise is that the Green Party have secured a massive increase in power, and there might actually be a chance of a difference in the next decade.
You've got the details a little wrong. The original two were the Whigs and the Tories, as you say. The Whigs became the Liberals who became the modern day Liberal Democrats, who still exist but haven't been in power outside of being a junior member of a coalition for a century. Tories became the Conservatives, who are still one of the major two and are regularly still called the Tories. There was a faction that broke away from the Whigs called the Liberal Unionists, who merged into the Conservatives, but they're separate from the Liberals. Labour is not a successor to either of them, though they did make some strategic agreements with the Liberals early on. In the early 1900s, Labour replaced the Liberals as one of the two major parties.
It is still consistently a two-party system. One of the historic parties got replaced and there is a stronger presence for minor parties than there is in the states (see especially the SNP in the past decade and the Tory-LibDem coalition in 2010), but still a two-party system
-
I looked up the history of UK Parliament a while ago. Since conception there have only ever been two parties in charge: Conservative (used to be called Liberal) and Labour. Before merges and changes the main groups were called Whigs and Tories, both of which primarily became Conservative. Modern Liberals brought back the original Liberal Party, while Liberal Democrats were formed by part of Labour and part of the modern Liberals. They are pretty much identical in terms of actual change.
The only show of promise is that the Green Party have secured a massive increase in power, and there might actually be a chance of a difference in the next decade.
Shares of the vote in general elections since 1832 received by Conservatives[note 1] (blue), Liberals/Liberal Democrats[note 2] (orange), Labour (red) and others (grey)[1][2][3]
The Conservatives forming from a split in the Liberal party doesn't mean they're the same thing.
Labour and Liberal Democrats are two very different parties. Or at least they used to be, until New Labour became a thing...
Our politics are bad, FPTP is bad, but we're not a 2 party system entirely. The Lib Dems, Greens, SNP, and Reform all manage to have a say in politics and how things are done. They all influence Labour and the Conservatives.
-
If they are training the AI with copyrighted data that they aren't paying for, then yes, they are doing the same thing as traditional media piracy. While I think piracy laws have been grossly blown out of proportion by entities such as the RIAA and MPAA, these AI companies shouldn't get a pass for doing what Joe Schmoe would get fined thousands of dollars for on a smaller scale.
The act of copying the data without paying for it (assuming it's something you need to pay for to get a copy of) is piracy, yes. But the training of an AI is not piracy because no copying takes place.
A lot of people have a very vague, nebulous concept of what copyright is all about. It isn't a generalized "you should be able to get money whenever anyone does anything with something you thought of" law. It's all about making and distributing copies of the data.
-
The act of copying the data without paying for it (assuming it's something you need to pay for to get a copy of) is piracy, yes. But the training of an AI is not piracy because no copying takes place.
A lot of people have a very vague, nebulous concept of what copyright is all about. It isn't a generalized "you should be able to get money whenever anyone does anything with something you thought of" law. It's all about making and distributing copies of the data.
Where does the training data come from seems like the main issue, rather than the training itself. Copying has to take place somewhere for that data to exist. I'm no fan of the current IP regime but it seems like an obvious problem if you get caught making money with terabytes of content you don't have a license for.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Can the rest of us please use copyrighted material without permission?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Says the dude who completed a song using AI.
-
Says the dude who completed a song using AI.
He used AI to Isolate John's voice from an old Demo. As long as a percentage of the proceeds of the song goes to John's estate, I don't think it's quite the same as AI ripping off artists.
-
He used AI to Isolate John's voice from an old Demo. As long as a percentage of the proceeds of the song goes to John's estate, I don't think it's quite the same as AI ripping off artists.
No it isn’t but I still refuse to choose on purpose to listen to that song. I don’t even know the name.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I can’t stop from hearing the song out in the wild. However I will not seek it out. I just do not want to hear a song purposefully made with AI in such a manner. I’m still bitter that LOVE won a Grammy over the soundtrack to Across the Universe. They only gave the award to LOVE because George Martin was involved in it.
-
Where does the training data come from seems like the main issue, rather than the training itself. Copying has to take place somewhere for that data to exist. I'm no fan of the current IP regime but it seems like an obvious problem if you get caught making money with terabytes of content you don't have a license for.
the slippery slope here is that you as an artist hear music on the radio, in movies and TV, commercials. All this hearing music is training your brain. If an AI company just plugged in an FM radio and learned from that music I'm sure that a lawsuit could start to make it that no one could listen to anyone's music without being tainted.
-
This post did not contain any content.
On the other hand copyright laws have been extended to insane time lengths. Sorry but your grandkids shouldn't profit off of you.
-
the slippery slope here is that you as an artist hear music on the radio, in movies and TV, commercials. All this hearing music is training your brain. If an AI company just plugged in an FM radio and learned from that music I'm sure that a lawsuit could start to make it that no one could listen to anyone's music without being tainted.
That feels categorically different unless AI has legal standing as a person. We're talking about training LLMs, there's not anything more than people using computers going on here.
-
This post did not contain any content.
While I understand their position, I disagree with it.
Training AI on copyrighted data - let’s take music for example - is no different to a kid at home listening to Beatles songs all day and using that as inspiration while learning how to write songs or play an instrument.
You cant copyright a style of music, a sound, or a song structure. As long as the AI isn’t just reproducing the copyrighted content “word for word”, I don’t see what the issue is.
Does the studio ghibli artist own that style of drawing? No, because you can’t own something like that. Others are free to draw whatever they want while replicating that style.
-
Can the rest of us please use copyrighted material without permission?
You already likely do. Every book you read and learned from is copyrighted material. Every video you watch on YouTube and learned from is copyrighted material.
The “without permission” is not correct. You’ve got permission to watch/listen/learn from it by them releasing it and you paying any applicable subscription etc costs. AI does the same.
-
While I understand their position, I disagree with it.
Training AI on copyrighted data - let’s take music for example - is no different to a kid at home listening to Beatles songs all day and using that as inspiration while learning how to write songs or play an instrument.
You cant copyright a style of music, a sound, or a song structure. As long as the AI isn’t just reproducing the copyrighted content “word for word”, I don’t see what the issue is.
Does the studio ghibli artist own that style of drawing? No, because you can’t own something like that. Others are free to draw whatever they want while replicating that style.
Some company's own some wildly absurd things, copyright is only enforced if you have the money to do your own policing sometimes in multiple continents
