AI industry horrified to face largest copyright class action ever certified
Technology
135
Beiträge
76
Kommentatoren
611
Aufrufe
-
I am holding my breath! Will they walk free, or get a $10 million fine and then keep doing what every other thieving, embezzling, looting, polluting, swindling, corrupting, tax evading mega-corporation have been doing for a century!
This is how corruption works - the fine is the cost of business. Being given only a fine of $10 million is such a win that they'll raise $10 billion in new investment on its back.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Is this how Disney becomes the owner of all of the AI companies too? Lol
-
This post did not contain any content.
Meanwhile some Italian YouTuber was raided because some portable consoles already came with roms in their memory, they only go after individuals.
-
I am holding my breath! Will they walk free, or get a $10 million fine and then keep doing what every other thieving, embezzling, looting, polluting, swindling, corrupting, tax evading mega-corporation have been doing for a century!
Would be better if the fee were nominal, but that all their training data must never be used. Start them over from scratch and make it illegal to use anything that it knows now.
Knee cap these frivolous little toys -
Yeah, so, this lawsuit is under US jurisdiction. Your entire comment is entirely irrelevant to the conversation at hand.
Holy fuck pick a lane or go huff your farts troll.
-
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.
Scrapping the Internet is not illegal. All AI companies did much more beyond that, they accessed private writings, private code, copyrighted images. they scanned copyrighted books (and then destroyed them), downloaded terabytes of copyrighted torrents ... etc
So, the message is like piracy is OK when it's done massively by a big company. They're claiming "fair use" and most judges are buying it (or being bought?)
-
Holy fuck pick a lane or go huff your farts troll.
I'm the troll?
Everything here is about American copyright law, which is explicitly justified within our constitution, and has been horribly abused since Disney effectively set the definition of "temporary" to mean "forever, minus a day".
Yet you want to stick your special little foreign nose in here, and express your special little foreign opinion on how those copyright bandits deserve to permanently lock cultural iconography behind a fucking paywall.
You don't even seem to be realizing that you're slurping on Corporate America's asshole; that the special little opinions you are expressing are shared and promoted by our Head Cheetoh in Charge. In your zeal for shutting down AI slop, you are supporting the MPAA, RIAA, Disney, and Donald J. Trump.
Pull your head out of your ass and critically evaluate the situation. Start with the fundamental purpose of copyright law, and who it is ultimately supposed to benefit. It's not the content creators. It is not the publishers. It is not the various lobbying associations.
The principal beneficiary of copyright law is supposed to be the general public.
We are asked to temporarily give up our public domain rights and allow content creators a brief period of exclusive control. This is in order to convince content creators to continue creating, rather than building an entire industry devoted to resting on their laurels.
The AI industry is using copyright law the same way that the general public was always supposed to be able to. You are siding with the abusers because you don't like the abused.
-
This post did not contain any content.
I love this. I hope big-tech/big-AI destroys big-copyright industry.
-
I disagree with the EFF and ALA on this one.
These were entire sets of writing consumed and reworked into poor data without respecting the license to them.
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if copyright wasn't the only thing to be the problem here, but intellectual property as well. In that case, EFF probably has an interest in that instead. Regardless, I really think it need to be brought through court.
LLMs are harmful, full stop. Most other Machine Learning mechanisms use licensed data to train. In the case of software as a medical device, such as image analysis AI, that data is protected by HIPPA and special attention is already placed in order to utilize it.
My guess is that the EFF is mostly concerned with the fact this is a class action and also worried about expanding copyright in general.
-
I love this. I hope big-tech/big-AI destroys big-copyright industry.
Nah, the only thing that could realistically happen is that copyright doesn't apply to AI hosted by large corporations. In no way will this destroy copyright claims against individuals or small companies.
-
if the courts decide that scraping is illegal, IA can close up shop.
They could move to a voluntary model in the worst case, they don't profit from it. Institute a "robots.txt" style protocol for signalling opt-in intent to volunteer for scraping by the archive.
-
They could move to a voluntary model in the worst case, they don't profit from it. Institute a "robots.txt" style protocol for signalling opt-in intent to volunteer for scraping by the archive.
yeah that might work, but what will happen to all the data they store currently?
-
yeah that might work, but what will happen to all the data they store currently?
I would imagine someone would still need to actually sue the Internet Archive for this to be a problem for them. The vast majority probably won't care, and they'll likely just have to deal with whatever the equivalent of a DMCA takedown notice is for them.
