That’s a good litmus test. If asking/paying artists to train your AI destroys your business model, maybe you’re the arsehole. ;)
Not only that, but their business model doesn’t hold up if they were required to provide their model weights for free because the material that went into it was “free”.
There’s also an argument that if the business was that reliant on free things to start with, then it shouldn’t be a business.
No-one would bat their eyes if the CEO of a real estate company was sobbing that it’s the end of the rental market, because the company is no longer allowed to get houses for free.
Businesses relying on free things. Logging, mining, ranching, and oil come to mind. Extracting free resources of the land belonging to the public, destroying those public lands and selling those resources back to the public at an exorbitant markup.
You misspelled capitalism.
Unregulated capitalism. That’s why people in dominant market positions want less regulation.
The entire internet is built on free things.
Just saying.
Doesn’t mean that businesses should allowed to be.
This particular vein of “pro-copyright” thought continuously baffles me. Copyright has not, was not intended to, and does not currently, pay artists.
Its totally valid to hate these AI companies. But its absolutely just industry propaganda to think that copyright was protecting your data on your behalf
Copyright has not, was not intended to, and does not currently, pay artists.
You are correct, copyright is ownership, not income. I own the copyright for all my work (but not work for hire) and what I do with it is my discretion.
What is income, is the content I sell for the price acceptable to the buyer. Copyright (as originally conceived) is my protection so someone doesn’t take my work and use it to undermine my skillset. One of the reasons why penalties for copyright infringement don’t need actual damages and why Facebook (and other AI companies) are starting to sweat bullets and hire lawyers.
That said, as a creative who relied on artistic income and pays other creatives appropriately, modern copyright law is far, far overreaching and in need of major overhaul. Gatekeeping was never the intent of early copyright and can fuck right off; if I paid for it, they don’t get to say no.
modern copyright law is far, far overreaching and in need of major overhaul.
https://rufuspollock.com/papers/optimal_copyright_term.pdf
This research paper from Rufus Pollock in 2009 suggests that the optimal timeframe for copyright is 15 years. I’ve been referencing this for, well, 16 years now, a year longer than the optimum copyright range. If I recall correctly I first saw this referenced by Mike Masnick of techdirt.
Gatekeeping absolutely was the intention of copyright, not to provide artists with income.
Copyright has not, was not intended to, and does not currently, pay artists.
Wrong in all points.
Copyright has paid artists (though maybe not enough). Copyright was intended to do that (though maybe not that alone). Copyright does currently pay artists (maybe not in your country, I don’t know that).
Wrong in all points.
No, actually, I’m not at all. In-fact, I’m totally right:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhBpI13dxkI
Copyright originated create a monopoly to protect printers, not artists, to create a monopoly around a means of distribution.
How many artists do you know? You must know a few. How many of them have received any income through copyright. I dare you, to in good faith, try and identify even one individual you personally know, engaged in creative work, who makes any meaningful amount of money through copyright.
You forgot to link a legitimate source.
I know several artists living off of selling their copyrighted work, and no one in the history of the Internet has ever watched a 55 minute YouTube video someone linked to support their argument.
Cool. What artist?
Edit because I didn’t read the second half of your comment. If you are too up-your-own ass and anti-intellectual to educate yourself on this matter, maybe just don’t have an opinion.
I’m fine with this. “We can’t succeed without breaking the law” isn’t much of an argument.
Do I think the current copyright laws around the world are fine? No, far from it.
But why do they merit an exception to the rules that will make them billions, but the rest of us can be prosecuted in severe and dramatic fashion for much less. Try letting the RIAA know you have a song you’ve downloaded on your PC that you didn’t pay for - tell them it’s for “research and training purposes”, just like AI uses stuff it didn’t pay for - and see what I mean by severe and dramatic.
It should not be one rule for the rich guys to get even richer and the rest of us can eat dirt.
Figure out how to fix the laws in a way that they’re fair for everyone, including figuring out a way to compensate the people whose IP you’ve been stealing.
Until then, deal with the same legal landscape as everyone else. Boo hoo
🌏👨🚀🔫👨🚀🌌
I also think it’s really rich that at the same time they’re whining about copyright they’re trying to go private. I feel like the ‘Open’ part of OpenAI is the only thing that could possibly begin to offset their rampant theft and even then they’re not nearly open enough.
“We can’t succeed without breaking the law. We can’t succeed without operating unethically.”
I’m so sick of this bullshit. They pretend to love a free market until it’s not in their favor and then they ask us to bend over backwards for them.
Too many people think they’re superior. Which is ironic, because they’re also the ones asking for handouts and rule bending. If you were superior, you wouldn’t need all the unethical things that you’re asking for.
Sounds like you are describing the orange baboon in the white house.
these kinds of asshats are all the same. Only difference is the size of the hat.
But I can’t pirate copyrighted materials to “train” my own real intelligence.
Now you get why we were all told to hate AI. It’s a patriot act for copywrite and IP laws.
It’s copyright, not copywrite—you know, the right to copy. Copywriting is what ad people do. And what does this have to do with the PATRIOT Act?
This is how you know I’m not an AI but instead an idiot that uses AI
That’s because the elites don’t want you to think for yourself, and instead are designing tools that will tell you what to think.
you can, however, go to your local library and read any book ever written for free
any book ever written
Damn! Which library are you going to?!
if the library doesn’t have a book, they will order it from another library….
every american library…Interlibrary Loan isn’t available everywhere (at least back when I used to work at a library ~10 years ago it wasn’t). If it is, it often has an associated fee (usually at least shipping fees, sometimes an additional service fee). I think the common exception to that is public university libraries.
Unless it’s deemed a “bad” one by your local klanned karenhood and removed from the library for being tOo WoKe
klanned karenhood
Yoink
Why training openai with literally millions of copyrighted works is fair use, but me downloading an episode of a series not available in any platform means years of prison?
Have you thought about incorporating yourself into a company? Apparently that solves all legal problems.
Copyrights should have never been extended longer than 5 years in the first place, either remove draconian copyright laws or outlaw LLM style models using copyrighted material, corpos can’t have both.
I think copyright lasting 20 years or so is not unreasonable in our current society. I’d obviously love to live in a society where we could get away with lower. As a compromise, I’d like to see compulsory licensing applied to all copyrighted work. (E.g., after n years, anyone can use it if they pay royalties and you can’t stop them; the amount of royalties gradually decreases until it’s in the public domain.)
Bro, what? Some books take more than 5 years to write and you want their authors to only have authorship of it for 5 years? Wtf. I have published books that are a dozen years old and I’m in my mid-30s. This is an insane take.
The one I thought was a good compromise was 14 years, with the option to file again for a single renewal for a second 14 years. That was the basic system in the US for quite a while, and it has the benefit of being a good fit for the human life span–it means that the stuff that was popular with our parents when we were kids, i.e. the cultural milieu in which we were raised, would be public domain by the time we were adults, and we’d be free to remix it and revisit it. It also covers the vast majority of the sales lifetime of a work, and makes preservation and archiving more generally feasible.
5 years may be an overcorrection, but I think very limited terms like that are closer to the right solution than our current system is.
You don’t have to stop selling when a book becomes public domain, publishers and authors sell public domain/commons books frequently, it’s just you won’t have a monopoly on the contents after the copyright expires.
And how do you think that’s going to go when suddenly the creator needs to compete with massive corps?
The reason copyright exists is for the same reason patents do: to protect the little guy.
Just because corporations abuse it doesn’t mean we throw it out.
It shouldn’t be long, but it sure should be longer than 5 years.
Or maybe 5 years unless it’s an individual.
The reason copyright exists is for the same reason patents do: to protect the little guy.
If you actually believe this is still true, I’ve got a bridge to sell ya’.
This hasn’t been true since the '70s, at the latest.
So you believe there is no protection for creators at all and removing copyright will help them?
I believe that the protection copyright provides is proportionate to how much you can spend on lawyers. So, no protection for the smallest creators, and little protection for smaller creators against larger corporations.
I support extreme copyright reform, though I doubt it should be completely removed.
Yes, my point is not removing it or reducing it to 5 years.
I’m not saying copyright is doing its job particularly well right now, but reducing its protection is not helping creators.
Copyright IS about protecting creators; we’re just still letting corporations run the show.
Thanks that’s very insightful and I’ll amend my position to 15 years 5 may be just a little zealous. 100 year US copyrights have been choking innovation due to things like Disney led trade group lobbyists, 15 years would be a huge boost to many creators being able to leverage more IPs and advancements being held in limbo unused or poorly used by corpo entities.
As an artist, kindly get fucked ass hole. I’d like compensation for all the work of mine you stole.
I love your name
Business that stole everyone’s information to train a model complains that businesses can steal information to train models.
Yeah I’ll pour one out for folks who promised to open-source their model and then backed out the moment the money appeared… Wankers.
Good. I hope this is what happens.
- LLM algorithms can be maintained and sold to corpos to scrape their own data so they can use them for in house tools, or re-sell them to their own clients.
- Open Source LLMs can be made available for end users to do the same with their own data, or scrape whats available in the public domain for whatever they want so long as they don’t re-sell
- Altman can go fuck himself
So pirating full works for commercial use suddenly is “fair use”, or what? Lets see what e.g. Disney says about this.
Oops, oh well. I very much hope it’s over, asshole.
It will never be over. We will either be the ones dominant in this area, or it won’t be us. If it’s not us, well, the consequences could be dire.
At the end of the day the fact that openai lost their collective shit when a Chinese company used their data and model to make their own more efficient model is all the proof I need they don’t care about being fair or equitable when they get mad at people doing the exact thing they did and would aggressively oppose others using their own work to advance their own.
Good, end this AI bullshit, it has little upsides and a metric fuckton of downsides for the common man
It has some great upsides. But those upsides can be trained on specific information that they pay for instead of training AI on people’s stuff who didn’t consent.
You don’t want to all become literally socially and mentally retarded together but apart?
Fuck these psychos. They should pay the copyright they stole with the billions they already made. Governments should protect people, MDF
“The plagiarism machine will break without more things to plagiarize.”
