- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
I hope you realize they aren’t fighting for the rights of artists. They are fighting for their exclusive right to exploit artists.
You’re not wrong, but if they win against AI, all artists will benefit because of the precedent that it would set.
What I think will actually happen if this is looking to not go in the tech bros’ favour is that they’ll settle and make a potential deal with large copyright holders for ongoing usage, and that would screw individual artists.
For artists able to afford a lawsuit against a multimillion company.
No. It doesn’t benefit artists.
But the large corporations are handling that side of things already. If the lawsuit goes in the favour of copyright holders, AI companies would in theory have to do something to avoid using copyrighted material, or pay for the usage. Of course, there’s every chance that they may end up avoiding using copyrighted material from anyone big enough to fight back, and just profit off of the works of artists without the resources to stop them doing so.
Still, artists will see nothing.
If artists see generative AI companies going bust, that will be something.
No thanks. I care about real benefits and systemic changes. Not fucking petty vengeance.
It’s literally worse than nothing because now all the time and effort used fighting for this was wasted.
If artists get a break from competing against plagiarized AI slop, that’s not petty vengeance.
Everything must be perfect!
If it ends the stupid AI bubble then I don’t think it qualifies as petty vengeance; that is some real change. There won’t be meaningful legislation to aid the day-to-day person against this garbage, no, but it’d still seriously reduce the degree to which this shit has invaded our lives.
Absolutely. There’s not a good guy on either side here.
If AI vendors win, it’s basically this:
So, use and support open-source AI models.
Licensing is the least of my objections to the gen AI plague.
open sourcing doesn’t effect the core issue.
I honestly see much less of an issue with using scraped content if there is no profit motivation behind it. The main thing is, that all that scraping and training costs a fuckton of money, so no open source nonprofit model will be able to do that
Still better than blatant theft
Abolish the abomination known as intellectual property
I hope both sides straight up die as a result of this
The end of the intellectual “property” regime
making infinite things artificially scarce
cannot possibly come soon enough
What was “intellectual property” should instead be paid up front by the people who want it
the result should be entirely unburdened of any sort of property, royalty, strings and DRM
ready to be infinitely broadcast and available to all
We’re still going to want stuff and we’re going to pay for it
We’re not going to be vampirized by monstrous mice of the past
for 80 years after the author’s death
now I’m off to piss, in Walt Disney’s cryotank
As Anthropic argued, it now “faces hundreds of billions of dollars in potential damages liability at trial in four months”
Well sure when you potentially violate almost every active copyright for multiple kinds of media, you end up potentially being liable for some wild damages. That’s the whole point.
Whether or not the work was sufficiently transformative will be an interesting question of course, but they should have known up front that this legal battle was a risk that their business could need to face.
For all those cheering on the copyright mafia going after Anthropic, consider that some of the groups supporting anthropic against this massive overreach of “we get to decide how you use our works” include:
- Authors Alliance
- the Electronic Frontier Foundation
- American Library Association
- Association of Research Libraries
- Public Knowledge
Maybe this is not such a great thing?
Indeed. I want AI companies to get regulated into smithereens, but not through expansion of copyright law. There would be too much collateral damage, and it wouldn’t even work.