My father got arrested and almost jailed for burning MP3 and audio disks for money. These people can scrape other people’s work for profit, and then get applauded by investors.
Piracy for me but not for thee.
I wonder if the next step will be making it able for a human to copyright the output of generative AI models, only for that these companies making sure through terms of use that they’ll be holding 50+% of the copyright and the profits in case of selling their slop.
The US is straight up owned by oligarchs. They can steal data, build products around said stolen data, and make you pay for the product built around said stolen data. But god forbid you dabble in piracy just so you can read a book, or a research paper, or expand your education without making anyone rich. No, only the parasite class is allowed to rake in billions of pieces of stolen content and force feed that back to you.
Fuck Sam Altman
“A copyright strategy that promotes the freedom to learn” - computers have more rights than people at this point.
That’s what they call ‘stealing’ or ‘piracy’ when the serfs do it.
This perfectly illustrates America’s 2-tiered justice system: one for the wealthy and one for the little people. If I torrent copyrighted material, I risk fines/jail-time. If a big corporation like meta does it, then it’s allegedly “fair use”. To be clear, what OpenAI is requesting isn’t remotely close to the original intended purpose of fair use. Worst part is that small/independent creators will (if they aren’t already) be most adversely impacted by such selective application of copyright law
-
This is exactly the intended purpose of fair use. Look up the copyright clause.
-
Small creators are the biggest beneficiaries of this. They would have to pay the extortionate licensing fees.
-
It’s called stealing OpenAI. Call it what it is.
It’s not stealing when billionaires do it.
When Aaron Schwartz was in trouble for downloading copyrighted articles everyone was on the side of “copyright laws are dumb and need to be changed”.
Now it’s more popular to hate on AI and so now people want to see strict adherence to copyright law.
It Mmkes it seem like people lack real convictions on the issue and are just being led around by memes.
Copyright law is terribly implemented and needs to change. This isn’t new and doesn’t become less true because your favorite memes want you to dunk on AI.
To be clear, this isn’t a discussion about removing copyright laws. This is a discussion about specifically big data collecting tech companies being immune to the laws which still apply to everyone else.
I never suggested or implied that copyright laws need to be removed.
It does appear that OpenAI’s position is “copyright laws are dumb and need to be changed” which, during the Aaron Schwartz story, was the position of the community.
Now, since the entity involved is an AI company, we’re seeing people who’re on the side of using copyright laws to punish infringers because they don’t like AI.
Either copyright laws need to be changed or they don’t need to be changed. Someone’s position on the topic shouldn’t change based on who is being negatively effected by said laws.
