Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending Sunday 27 October 2024
https://awful.systems/post/2668740
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from froztbyte@awful.systems
The Bookseller: Penguin Random House underscores copyright protection in AI rebuff
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from gerikson@awful.systems
It’s weird how rarely I see people point this, but in theory this kind of boilerplate should be technically meaningless. If copyright protections include the privilege to use the work for training a machine learning algorithm, you need explicit permission anyway. OTOH if it’s fair use or otherwise not something copyright law is concerned with, the copyright holder’s objection doesn’t matter.
For the record, I think AI models are derivative works and thus they’re not only infringing on typical “all rights reserved” works, but also things such as Free software whose license terms require attribution if used in derivative work, and especially share-alike copyleft licensed work.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from bitofhope@awful.systems
I thinkt it’s pretty well-lknown that Spotify got all its initial music from Oink. They moved fast, got dominant, and were able to present the record labels with a big audience prepared to pay for streaming music. The labels quickly ensured they’d get the lion’s share of that revenue.
OpenAI and friends tried the same thing - scrape everything, build AGI, reap the rewards. Except it didn’t work, and they’re in a much worse position morally. Even if they can get a judgement that what they’re doing is legal, it will cost them a lot in litigation fees, coupled with the public perception that these culture vampires are ripping off the poor honest author. Not a good place to be in.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from gerikson@awful.systems
text/geminiThis content has been proxied by September (3851b).