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
72
Beiträge
45
Kommentatoren
0
Aufrufe
-
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
-
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.
if i learn a book by heart, and then go around making money by reciting it, then that's illegal. same thing.
-
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.
By "use" I actually meant "reproduce portions of" and "make derivative works of"
-
This post did not contain any content.
I mean they were trained on copyrighted material and nothing has been done about that so...
-
I mean they were trained on copyrighted material and nothing has been done about that so...
So abolish copyright law entirely instead of only allowing theft when capitalists do it.
-
if i learn a book by heart, and then go around making money by reciting it, then that's illegal. same thing.
On the other hand, it is not the learning in your example that is illegal, but the recital.
If you learn ten books by heart and make money writing shitty fanfics, thats not necessarily illegal.
-
On the other hand, it is not the learning in your example that is illegal, but the recital.
If you learn ten books by heart and make money writing shitty fanfics, thats not necessarily illegal.
well yeah. And it has been proven time and again that they can, and do, regurgitate that training material out quite often
-
So abolish copyright law entirely instead of only allowing theft when capitalists do it.
That is definitely one of the most cooked takes I've heard in a while.
Why would anyone create anything if it can immediately be copied with no compensation to you?
-
That is definitely one of the most cooked takes I've heard in a while.
Why would anyone create anything if it can immediately be copied with no compensation to you?
Creation happened before intellectual property laws existed.
Creation happens that can be immediately copied with no compensation now, open source software is an example.
-
Creation happened before intellectual property laws existed.
Creation happens that can be immediately copied with no compensation now, open source software is an example.
How many authors do you think would have written the books they did, if they weren't able to make a living from their work? Most of the people creating works before copyright either had a patron of some description, or outright worked for an organisation.
-
That is definitely one of the most cooked takes I've heard in a while.
Why would anyone create anything if it can immediately be copied with no compensation to you?
You know that for the vast majority of human history copyright didn't exist, and yet people still created art and culture, right?
edit: If you're gonna downvote, have the balls to explain how I'm wrong.
-
How many authors do you think would have written the books they did, if they weren't able to make a living from their work? Most of the people creating works before copyright either had a patron of some description, or outright worked for an organisation.
The specific works? Who knows. It's irrelevant
My point is your original premise was wrong. Creation DID happen without IP laws. People DO create with out the need for compensation/copy protection.
I propose, people will create things because they always have.
-
This post did not contain any content.
How tf did this Ponze Scheme even get as far as the UK Prime Minister's desk?
-
How tf did this Ponze Scheme even get as far as the UK Prime Minister's desk?
It's not a Ponzi scheme. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's a scam and even if it was a scam that wouldn't be the type of scam that it was.
Absolute worst you could call it is false advertising, because AI does actually work just not very well.
-
well yeah. And it has been proven time and again that they can, and do, regurgitate that training material out quite often
Yup. I don't think training should be considered breaking copyright. Regurgitating though should.
There are examples of use cases besides the right now obvious one of LLMs "creating" "original" content.
One that comes to my mind is indexing books. Allowing for people to search for books based on a description.
-
This post did not contain any content.
should start up our own ai company anyone is free to join
-
On the other hand copyright laws have been extended to insane time lengths. Sorry but your grandkids shouldn't profit off of you.
It's never the grandkids. The Beatles sold the rights to their songs.
