This is not going to be very popular but the use of data for corpus training is not stealing. It wasn't stealing when people copied music either. IP maximalism is not helpful; it wasn't then, it isn't now. The use of data for these purposes is explicitly allowed for in EU law, and probably part of fair use.
It's also nothing new. All sorts of vital accessibility tools (voice recognition, voice synthesis) or other things such as spell checking rely on corpora.
[#]AI #IP
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from modulux@node.isonomia.net
@modulux I think there's a pretty substantial difference between STT, TTS, and spell-checkers on the one hand, and generative AI on the other, whether or not the law recognizes a difference.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from aspensmonster@tenforward.social
@aspensmonster There are lots of differnces, but the differences don't make it stealing data. It's the wrong angle of attack on the whole thing.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from modulux@node.isonomia.net
@modulux Sure. I don't know how the arguments are playing out in the EU, but from what I've watched here in the US, the typical argument is that the outputs -- or at least, some subset of the possible outputs -- of generative AI tools constitute derivative works of the data that they were trained on. And derivative works require permission from the copyright holder in order to commercialize them in most cases.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from aspensmonster@tenforward.social
@aspensmonster Yep, that's sensible. Certainly if they incorporate sufficient similarity to the work in the corpus. Where it gets iffy is in trying to create a purported right to determine which algorithms are allowed to run on data created by one person. I don't think this maximalism is bad just on a whim. By the same logic I should get permission from a copyright holder to change the equalisation settings on a song, for example. Or remove advertising from a website. The copyright conceit stretches in very dangerous directions when pulled on.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from modulux@node.isonomia.net
@modulux >The copyright conceit stretches in very dangerous directions when pulled on.
Absolutely.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from aspensmonster@tenforward.social
@modulux @aspensmonster but I suspect that no songwriter will care if you change equalisation settings for personal use.
You said "maximalism" and I think it's key: it should be possible to respect authors' wishes without detriment to common good.
An extreme example is Spotify copyright laundering of music. To me, it is extremely unethical, and I would expect negative consequences to the common good.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from yo@alex.femto.pub
@yo @aspensmonster Indeed I wouldn't, but copyright is often held by corporate entities, or where this is not directly allowed by law, the exercise of the exclusionary rights which it confers. Do I think that a musician will try to charge me for re-equalising their song at home? It sounds very unlikely. Their label, however; I wouldn't at all be surprised by something like that if it were legally permitted. It could be sold as a bonus.
Generally I think that corpus research has at least some justification on the common good. But that's so hazy that I think we can't draw this distinction successfully in law. Without continued data mining, certain things become either very difficult or impossible: updating spell checking databases, search engines, all kinds of very basic things.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from modulux@node.isonomia.net
@modulux @aspensmonster yes, but I think we should also try win-win strategies; voting with our pockets preferring to pay content with fewer IP restrictions, spending more time on sites that are not saturated with ads, etc.
For example: physical media (DVD) is not perfect, but is less restrictive than streaming services. Should we buy DVDs again? (I'm beginning to think so.)
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from yo@alex.femto.pub
@yo @aspensmonster Agreed. I do buy CDs whenever possible, for example. I admit part of it is the desire for convenience and autonomy on my part. I prefer to rip and keep my copies of everything locally rather than relying on streaming, which requires constant payments, and which might always disappear or become unavailable. I also prefer to choose which media player I use and how I get to things, rather than having to use a specific one.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from modulux@node.isonomia.net This content has been proxied by September (3851b).Proxy Information
text/gemini