Technology

37717 readers

381 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Amazon- and Google-backed AI firm Anthropic says “general-purpose AI tools simply could not exist” if AI companies had to pay licences for the training material (www.computerweekly.com)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

74 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) company Anthropic has claimed to a US court that using copyrighted content in large language model (LLM) training data counts as “fair use”, however.

Under US law, “fair use” permits the limited use of copyrighted material without permission, for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research.

In October 2023, a host of music publishers including Concord, Universal Music Group and ABKCO initiated legal action against the Amazon- and Google-backed generative AI firm Anthropic, demanding potentially millions in damages for the allegedly “systematic and widespread infringement of their copyrighted song lyrics”.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

How am I doing their dirty work for them? I literally will stop thinking that they're getting away with piracy for profit when we stop haranguing people who are committing to piracy for the benefit of mankind.

I'm not saying Meta should be stopped, I'm saying the prosecution of Sci-Hub and Annas-Archive need to be stopped under the same pretenses.

If it's okay to pirate for the purpose of making money (what we put The Pirate Bay admins in jail for), then it's okay to pirate to benefit mankind.

There is literally no way in hell someone can convince me what Meta and others are doing is not pirating to use the data contained within to make money. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say.

I reiterate, they knew it was pirated and had DRM circumvented when they downloaded it. There was zero question of the source of this data. They knew from the beginning they intended to profit from the use of this data. How is that different than what we accused The Pirate Bay admins of?

It really feels like "Well these corporations have money to steal more prolifically than little people, so since they're stealing is so big, we have to ignore it."

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

Then I misunderstood what you were saying. Carry on.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

There is literally no way in hell someone can convince me what Meta and others are doing is not pirating

Then your argument is non-falsifiable, and therefore, invalid.

Major corporations and pirates are finally on the same side for once. "Fair Use" finally has financial backing. Meta is certainly not a friend, but our interests currently align.

The worst possible outcome here is that copyright trolls manage to convince the courts that they are owed licensing fees. Next worse is a settlement that grants rightsholders a share of profits generated by AI, like they got from manufacturers of blank tapes and CDs.

Best case is that the MPAA, RIAA, and other copyright trolls get reminded that "Fair Use" is not an exception to copyright law, but the fundamental reason it exists: Fair Use is the promotion of science and the useful arts. Fair Use is the rule; Restriction is the exception.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

Then your argument is non-falsifiable, and therefore, invalid.

Wow this is some powerful internet word salad, just shot gunning scientific sounding words at the wall to try to pretty up a basic internet debate. Falsifiability is about scientific hypotheses, not statements of belief. "Nothing you can say can convince me that murder isn't wrong" may mean there's no further use in debate, but it isn't "non-falsifiable" in any meaningful way nor does it somehow make the argument for the immorality of murder "invalid".