GenAI tools ‘could not exist’ if firms are made to pay copyright | Computer Weekly
www.computerweekly.com
Artificial intelligence firm Anthropic hits out at copyright lawsuit filed by music publishing corporations, claiming the content ingested into its models falls under ‘fair use’ and that any licensing regime created to manage its use of copyrighted material in training data would be too complex and costly to work in practice

GenAI tools ‘could not exist’ if firms are made to pay copyright::undefined

  • CurbsTickle@lemmy.worldEnglish
    52·
    10 months ago

    I’d say the main reason is companies are profiting off the work of others. It’s not some grand positive motive for society, but taking the work of others, from other companies, sure, but also from small time artists, writers, etc.

    Then selling access to the information they took from others.

    I wouldn’t call it a right wing position.

    • General_Effort@lemmy.worldEnglish
      63·
      10 months ago

      Wanting to abolish the IRS is a right-wing policy that will benefit the rich. That doesn’t change when some marketing genius talks about how the IRS takes money from small time artists, writers, etc. Same thing. It’s about substance and not manipulative framing.

      • CurbsTickle@lemmy.worldEnglish
        22·
        10 months ago

        That isn’t remotely similar…

        The IRS takes a portion of income. This is taking away someone’s income, then charging access to it.

        Like it or not, these people need money to survive. Calling it right wing to think these individuals deserve to be paid for someone taking their work, then using it for a product they sell access to, is absolutely insane to me.

          • CurbsTickle@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            10 months ago

            One is a percentage of income that everyone pays into.

            The other is stealing someone’s work then using that person’s work for profit.

            Recognizing that stealing someone’s work is not a right-wing position.

            How is this complicated?

            • General_Effort@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              10 months ago

              I see. Thanks for explaining.

              This view of property rights as absolute is what right-libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, etc… espouse. Usually the cries of “theft” come when it gets to taxes, though. Is it supposed to be not right because it’s about intellectual property?

              Property rights are not necessarily right-wing (communism notwithstanding). What is definitely right-wing is (heritable) privilege and that’s implied in these views of property.

              ETA: Just to make sure that I really understand what you are saying: When you say “stealing someone’s work” you do mean the unauthorized copying of copyrighted expression, yes? Do you actually understand that copyright is intellectual property and that property is not usually called work? Labor and capital are traditionally considered opposites, of a sort, particularly among the left.

              • CurbsTickle@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                10 months ago

                So… You think their art or writing was created by what then? Magic? Do you think no time was expended in the creation of books, research, drawings, painted canvases, etc?

                Do you think they should starve because we currently live in a world driven entirely around money?

                I don’t get your point even remotely.

                • General_Effort@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  10 months ago

                  I am just pointing out the meaning of words; originally just left vs right-wing.

                  Labor is not capital. The factories owned by Tesla were built by workers, just like the robots in them. Time was expended on their design. And yet, all that is still property. When some worker in such a factory takes a wrench home for personal use, then they are not stealing the work of Elon Musk or the other share-holders.

                  To make a point about policy: None of the owners of the NYT, or Getty, or others like them will starve because of fair use. They are rich people, they will stay rich, and I see no reason to give them more money simply because they own a lot of intellectual property. Anyone at actual risk of starving will only be hurt by sending more of the national income to the top.

                  US copyright exists “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”. The idea is that this can be achieved by introducing a profit motive. Requiring license fees for existing, publicly accessible works, can’t conceivably serve this purpose. It seems obvious that it will only hurt the purpose.

                  • CurbsTickle@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    1·
                    10 months ago

                    You realize it wasn’t just massive corporations that had their works taken, right? And that is a key reason why so many people are concerned about an AI/LLM company taking the work of others, and using it for their own profit?

                    Thinking this is limited to NYT or Getty is ignorant at best.

                    Not to mention the migration of that goal post.