1105
Not good for business (lemmy.world)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world
58 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 40 points 9 months ago (6 children)

I don't get how they're allowed to do this in the first place.

People are using LLM's instead of visiting websites, reading books, or watching videos. And lots of people are PAYING AI companies for this.

It's such a clear case of copyright infringement, and it's leading to countless losses for creators.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago

    I think part of the issue is it's relatively new, new things don't have laws written about them and haven't been tried in court. So, until one of the copyright holders want to push the issue it's sort of like "well, maybe it's illegal, maybe it's not."

    And of course the copyright holders just make deals so that they get paid and they move on with life (Disney).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -4 points 9 months ago (3 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    Interesting point. But you didn't steal all those books. I think that's the problem. If you couldn't access a book you might pirate it, But these guys pirated them all, all the video all the books all the art all the photos all the conversations. They used copyrighted works to train their models.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    This seems like the key point. The teacher who buys a text book to share it's contents with others is the intended use of the content. There's clearly no theft there. If the creators of all this content had genuinely intended it to be used this way then there would be no problem. But the vast majority of artists/authors/creators seem to be against the use of their work like this (perhaps given appropriate compensation they could have been brought on side?)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    This logic appeals to me but I'm curious how it could work legally as well as potential side effects. It seems likely that legal arguments would ensue over intended use of content, and it doesn't seem like it should be illegal to use some created work in a new or unintended manner.

    I think the overall goals are to encourage creative and academic work (which requires funding creators), discourage centralization of knowledge (prevent leverage over and manipulation of populace), encourage distrust of llm output without source references in output, and discourage overuse of generative AI. I'm sure there are more, but that's what comes to mind.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent