• Chloé 🥕@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      imo copyright should be like patents. 20 years after the copyright was filed, it becomes public domain.

      that’s the compromise at least, ideally copyright should not exist at all

      • frongt@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        That’s what it used to be, until Disney lobbied to extend it so that they wouldn’t lose Mickey and their other cash cows.

    • Micromot@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 days ago

      I don’t unterstand why copyright would last longer than the lifetime of the authors who were part of the creative process. It doesn’t make sense that it can be transferred like it is

        • Micromot@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 days ago

          I understand them lasting for a certain time so the authors can get a compensation for what they have worked for. Of course people are allowed to quote things and use the content in a transformative way like in the German urheberrechts laws.

          Without royalties or copyright it’s difficult to earn enough money for living as an artist. If there was proper support and compensation for artists there would be no reason for copyright law.

        • Micromot@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 days ago

          I know why it is the case but it doesn’t make sense from a logical perspective that isn’t capitalistically oriented

          • frongt@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 days ago

            Well … yeah? Of course a capitalist decision only makes sense under capitalism.

      • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        Hell, let’s compromise and say 20 years after the author’s death. In case they have a small child at the time of death and said child’s other parent isn’t capable of the kid’s upkeep, a little extra would help.

        But what is it right now? 70 years? Literally no excuse for that.

  • hexagonwin@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    mixed feelings…

    so either piracy wins or meta loses?

    lol

    most likely only ‘rich’ piracy wins

    • reksas@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      at least this would create quite nice case if someone has to defend oneself in court. Either one can defend oneself with it or its dismissed and it proves that law does not apply to the rich.

  • november@piefed.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    Huge corps have been getting away with a lot in the name of “AI”. It would be so fucking funny if this is how copyright law finally dies.

  • KaKi87@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    The company also stresses that the data helped establish U.S. global leadership in AI.

    Just like the data helps establish much needed universal access to education and entertainment.

    But of course, the argument is only relevant when it goes in favor of the rich people.

  • Kilgore Trout@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    So pirating anything has become “fair use”? Or does that work only for billionaire public-market companies?

    • ATS1312@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      When they can argue its for “transformative use” or whatever the magic words are? Thats technically fair use in US law.

      Critique, parody, and even collage-as-art are all explicit carveouts for fair use. Remixing and remuxing artists, being broke, cannot afford the lawyers to effectively apply this, so they pay off the “owners” of that existing IP.

      The AI bros might have a serious point within the law, and that should scare actual artists. It should also scare studios like Disney that hold a fuck ton of “intellectual property”.

      Using it to train an AI? Takes meeting that “transformational” requirement for fair use to newly undisputed heights, so long as safeguards are in place to remove the possibility to use it as a vector for direct replication.

      • Kilgore Trout@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        It does make sense to me, legally speaking, but I can’t surrender to the fact that Meta is selling a product with this stolen data.

      • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 days ago

        When they can argue its for “transformative use” or whatever the magic words are? Thats technically fair use in US law.

        Well, considering they transformed its use to about 250GB of weights, that would qualify. That’s at least thousands of times less than the size of the books they downloaded, so you can’t really claim “they downloaded the books and put it into the model unaltered”.

        It’s not like you can ask one of the models for page 156 of the second Harry Potter book, unless it’s cheating and attached to a search engine to try to find the result. There is no compression technique that can take something to a thousandth of its size without an substantial loss. You can, however, ask it to summarize what happened in the second Harry Potter book, including what the actual title is, without it trying to look it up on its own.

        The AI bros might have a serious point within the law, and that should scare actual artists. It should also scare studios like Disney that hold a fuck ton of “intellectual property”.

        Actual artists have been fucked over by copyright since its invention. Copyright, patents, and intellectual rights were created under the false pretense that it “protects the little person”, but these are lies told by the rich and powerful to keep themselves rich and powerful. Time and time again, we have seen how broken the patent system is, how it is impossible to not step on musical copyright, how Mark Twain, Sonny Bono, and Disney has extended copyrights to forever, and how the megacorporations have way more money than everybody else to defend those copyrights and patents. These people are not your friend, and their legal protections are not for you.

        If the rich end up dismantling their own IP shield that has existed to enrich themselves for centuries in the name of AI progress, I’m going to call that a win.

        • Kilgore Trout@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 days ago

          If the rich end up dismantling their own IP shield that has existed to enrich themselves for centuries in the name of AI progress, I’m going to call that a win.

          It seems to me that the direction where we are going is that it is a win for corporations, but as an individual you are still going to be prosecuted for sharing a Hollywood movie.

  • Wizard3964@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    I am disappointed nobody has argued that it’s what the Jesus would have wanted.

    Not enough bread? Copy paste it. Baker won’t mind because we bought the first copy.

  • KaKi87@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    Meta also argued that the BitTorrent sharing was a necessity to get the valuable (but pirated) data.

    Actually that’s not true, they could have done hit-and-run, not that it helps anything though.

    • bless@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      American law: uploading is distribution American companies: no lol