243
Reddit Advised to Target at Least $5 Billion Valuation in IPO (www.bloomberg.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.ml
167 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Whatever already existed won't be thrown away regardless of the ruling. It's like throwing all the gold already dug up just because it was done by slave labor. The law and legal actions are mostly just a moat around the pile of gold already dug up. Sure AI companies will have to pay more for the new data from other sources. However that would be peanut compared to how much they will have to pay starting from zero.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    If every time what already exists gets used there's a risk of a massive fine or court case they'll throw it away.

    The game now is to delay the legal process long enough until they've built the replacement.

    Then they can afford to throw the, essentially faulty, model away.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's not at all clear that the current model does breach the law.

    If it was a court would have issued an injunction or whatever.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's clear from the output that it breaks copyright.

    We don't have to look inside the black box to demand to see the input which caused that output.

    To be clear a machine is not responsible for itself. This machine was trained to break copyright.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Generally if someone is clearly in breach of copyright the rights holder will apply to a court to issue an injunction to order that company to cease their activities until a case can be resolved.

    Given that has not happened, it seems that from a court's perspective, it's not a clear breach of copyright.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    The rights holder first considers the size of the payout vs. the cost of legal fees.

    Just because they haven't been sued directly for this doesn't make it infringement.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Nonsense. If this is copyright the payout will be many billions. They've had a year to think about it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    The statute of limitations is much longer than a year. It's usually around 5.

    They can wait, see who's made the money, then target them for a payout.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •