On 2/26/2025 9:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 26, 2025 at 4:40:52 PM PST, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> >> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 00:34:00 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Feb 26, 2025 at 3:06:45 PM PST, "Alan Smithee" <alms@last.inc> wrote: >>>>
1,000 artists release a silent album to protest AI taking their works...
https://www.techspot.com/news/106909-over-1000-musicians-release-silent-album-protest-ai.html
I've never understood the claim that training AI systems on books, music, >>>> etc.
is a copyright violation in the first place.
The AI isn't making an unauthorized copy of the work. It's reading (or >>>> listening to ) the work and learning from it. This isn't any different >>>> than a
human being reading a book and learning from it.
Some have said, well, the AI makes a copy of the work in its brain while >>>> it's
learning but the same can be said of a human. Why is one a (supposed) >>>> copyright violation but the other is not?
The AI isn't paying for the work and the works in question aren't free
for anyone to use.
I don't pay for the books in my local library? Am I committing a copyright >> violation by reading them?
You are if you read them to someone else.
On 2/26/2025 9:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 26, 2025 at 4:40:52 PM PST, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> >> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 00:34:00 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Feb 26, 2025 at 3:06:45 PM PST, "Alan Smithee" <alms@last.inc> wrote: >>>>
1,000 artists release a silent album to protest AI taking their works... >>>>>
https://www.techspot.com/news/106909-over-1000-musicians-release-silent-album-protest-ai.html
I've never understood the claim that training AI systems on books, music, >>>> etc. is a copyright violation in the first place.
The AI isn't making an unauthorized copy of the work. It's reading (or >>>> listening to ) the work and learning from it. This isn't any different >>>> than a human being reading a book and learning from it.
Some have said, well, the AI makes a copy of the work in its brain
while it's learning but the same can be said of a human. Why is one a
(supposed) copyright violation but the other is not?
The AI isn't paying for the work and the works in question aren't free
for anyone to use.
I don't pay for the books in my local library? Am I committing a copyright >> violation by reading them?
You are if you read them to someone else.
On 2025-02-27 16:50:35 +0000, moviePig said:
On 2/26/2025 9:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 26, 2025 at 4:40:52 PM PST, "shawn"
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 00:34:00 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Feb 26, 2025 at 3:06:45 PM PST, "Alan Smithee" <alms@last.inc>
wrote:
1,000 artists release a silent album to protest AI taking their
works...
https://www.techspot.com/news/106909-over-1000-musicians-release-
silent-album-protest-ai.html
I've never understood the claim that training AI systems on books,
music,
etc. is a copyright violation in the first place.
The AI isn't making an unauthorized copy of the work. It's reading (or >>>>> listening to ) the work and learning from it. This isn't any
different than a human being reading a book and learning from it.
Some have said, well, the AI makes a copy of the work in its brain
while it's learning but the same can be said of a human. Why is one
a (supposed) copyright violation but the other is not?
The AI isn't paying for the work and the works in question aren't free >>>> for anyone to use.
I don't pay for the books in my local library? Am I committing a
copyright
violation by reading them?
You are if you read them to someone else.
Doing a book reading for an audience (especially if they're paying for a ticket) without the publisher's permission is definitely breaking the legalese small print in the front of many books.
For example, this is in the front of a random book I took from my home bookshelf:
"All rights reserved. no part of this publication my be
reproduced, published, performed in public or communicated
to the public in any form or by any means without prior
permission from the publisher or its authorised licensees."
Techncially, even me posting that 'part of the publication' is breaking
those terms and conditions.
Similarly playing a DVD, of video tape in ye olde days, for an audience
needs permission.
Many books and videos also say the product cannot be stored in any kind
of retrieval system without permission, which is one of the legal
problems for some of the silly AI systems "learning" from such material.
Many things, especialy creative works, that you buy you do not actually
own. You simply pay for a 'license' to use them under the terms and conditions that you agree to when purchasing and/or opening the
packaging. That includes almost all computer software and the operating systems. Legally, if you break those terms and conditions, the company
that owns the rights could take you to court or simply revoke your
license to use the product. In most cases they don't bother because it's simply not worth the time and money, unless you're stupid enough to be
trying to make money yourself.
On Feb 27, 2025 at 8:50:35 AM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 2/26/2025 9:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 26, 2025 at 4:40:52 PM PST, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 00:34:00 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Feb 26, 2025 at 3:06:45 PM PST, "Alan Smithee" <alms@last.inc> wrote:
1,000 artists release a silent album to protest AI taking their works...
https://www.techspot.com/news/106909-over-1000-musicians-release-silent-album-protest-ai.html
I've never understood the claim that training AI systems on books, music,
etc.
is a copyright violation in the first place.
The AI isn't making an unauthorized copy of the work. It's reading (or >>>>> listening to ) the work and learning from it. This isn't any different >>>>> than a
human being reading a book and learning from it.
Some have said, well, the AI makes a copy of the work in its brain while
it's
learning but the same can be said of a human. Why is one a (supposed) >>>>> copyright violation but the other is not?
The AI isn't paying for the work and the works in question aren't free >>>> for anyone to use.
I don't pay for the books in my local library? Am I committing a copyright
violation by reading them?
You are if you read them to someone else.
Nope. Reading them aloud to someone in person is not a public performance any more than inviting your friend over to watch a movie with you is a public performance.
On Feb 26, 2025 at 3:06:45 PM PST, "Alan Smithee"<alms@last.inc> wrote:
1,000 artists release a silent album to protest AI taking their works...
https://www.techspot.com/news/106909-over-1000-musicians-release-silent-album-protest-ai.html
I've never understood the claim that training AI systems on books, music, etc.
is a copyright violation in the first place.
The AI isn't making an unauthorized copy of the work. It's reading (or listening to ) the work and learning from it. This isn't any different than a human being reading a book and learning from it.
Some have said, well, the AI makes a copy of the work in its brain while it's learning but the same can be said of a human. Why is one a (supposed) copyright violation but the other is not?
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 16:34:00 -0800, BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 26, 2025 at 3:06:45 PM PST, "Alan Smithee"<alms@last.inc> wrote:
1,000 artists release a silent album to protest AI taking their works... >> >
https://www.techspot.com/news/106909-over-1000-musicians-release-silent-album-protest-ai.html
I've never understood the claim that training AI systems on books, music, >> etc.
is a copyright violation in the first place.
The AI isn't making an unauthorized copy of the work. It's reading (or
listening to ) the work and learning from it. This isn't any different than >> a
human being reading a book and learning from it.
Some have said, well, the AI makes a copy of the work in its brain while
it's
learning but the same can be said of a human. Why is one a (supposed)
copyright violation but the other is not?
You use your brain to violate copyright law or tell a computer
to violate copyright law and you say the computer user should get a free pass?
On Mar 1, 2025 at 4:51:12 PM PST, "Pluted Pup" <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 16:34:00 -0800, BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 26, 2025 at 3:06:45 PM PST, "Alan Smithee"<alms@last.inc> wrote: >>>
1,000 artists release a silent album to protest AI taking their works... >>> >
https://www.techspot.com/news/106909-over-1000-musicians-release-silent-album-protest-ai.html
I've never understood the claim that training AI systems on books, music, >>> etc.
is a copyright violation in the first place.
The AI isn't making an unauthorized copy of the work. It's reading (or
listening to ) the work and learning from it. This isn't any different than
a
human being reading a book and learning from it.
Some have said, well, the AI makes a copy of the work in its brain while >>> it's
learning but the same can be said of a human. Why is one a (supposed)
copyright violation but the other is not?
You use your brain to violate copyright law or tell a computer
to violate copyright law and you say the computer user should get a free
pass?
No, I'm saying that a human reading a book with her brain DOESN'T violate >copyright law, so why should a computer reading a book with its brain become a >violation?
On Sat, 01 Mar 2025 19:53:55 -0800, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 1, 2025 at 4:51:12 PM PST, "Pluted Pup"<plutedpup@outlook.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 16:34:00 -0800, BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 26, 2025 at 3:06:45 PM PST, "Alan Smithee"<alms@last.inc> wrote:
1,000 artists release a silent album to protest AI taking their works...
https://www.techspot.com/news/106909-over-1000-musicians-release-silent-album-protest-ai.html
I've never understood the claim that training AI systems on books, music,
etc.
is a copyright violation in the first place.
The AI isn't making an unauthorized copy of the work. It's reading (or >> > > listening to ) the work and learning from it. This isn't any different >>>> than
a
human being reading a book and learning from it.
Some have said, well, the AI makes a copy of the work in its brain while
it's
learning but the same can be said of a human. Why is one a (supposed) >> > > copyright violation but the other is not?
You use your brain to violate copyright law or tell a computer
to violate copyright law and you say the computer user should get a free >> > pass?
No, I'm saying that a human reading a book with her brain DOESN'T violate >> copyright law, so why should a computer reading a book with its brain
become a
violation?
No, I am saying that someone committing copyright fraud with computers shouldn't be exonerated while only those using their own brain to
commit copyright fraud should be prosecuted.
That's mindless.
On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 03:53:55 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Mar 1, 2025 at 4:51:12 PM PST, "Pluted Pup" <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 16:34:00 -0800, BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 26, 2025 at 3:06:45 PM PST, "Alan Smithee"<alms@last.inc> wrote: >>>>
> 1,000 artists release a silent album to protest AI taking their works...
>
>
https://www.techspot.com/news/106909-over-1000-musicians-release-silent-album-protest-ai.html
I've never understood the claim that training AI systems on books, music,
etc.
is a copyright violation in the first place.
The AI isn't making an unauthorized copy of the work. It's reading (or >>>> listening to ) the work and learning from it. This isn't any different than
a
human being reading a book and learning from it.
Some have said, well, the AI makes a copy of the work in its brain while >>>> it's
learning but the same can be said of a human. Why is one a (supposed) >>>> copyright violation but the other is not?
You use your brain to violate copyright law or tell a computer
to violate copyright law and you say the computer user should get a free >>> pass?
No, I'm saying that a human reading a book with her brain DOESN'T violate
copyright law, so why should a computer reading a book with its brain become >> a
violation?
Two reasons, one is a computer doesn't as of yet have the same rights
and privileges as a human being.
Second is that when a computer reads a book it often is making a copy
of the book in its memory. Which is different from what a human does
when reading a book.
On Mar 1, 2025 at 4:51:12 PM PST, "Pluted Pup"<plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 16:34:00 -0800, BTR1701 wrote:
On Feb 26, 2025 at 3:06:45 PM PST, "Alan Smithee"<alms@last.inc> wrote:
1,000 artists release a silent album to protest AI taking their works...
https://www.techspot.com/news/106909-over-1000-musicians-release-silent-album-protest-ai.html
I've never understood the claim that training AI systems on books, music, etc.
is a copyright violation in the first place.
The AI isn't making an unauthorized copy of the work. It's reading (or listening to ) the work and learning from it. This isn't any different than
a
human being reading a book and learning from it.
Some have said, well, the AI makes a copy of the work in its brain while it's
learning but the same can be said of a human. Why is one a (supposed) copyright violation but the other is not?
You use your brain to violate copyright law or tell a computer
to violate copyright law and you say the computer user should get a free pass?
No, I'm saying that a human reading a book with her brain DOESN'T violate copyright law, so why should a computer reading a book with its brain become a
violation?
On Mar 1, 2025 at 8:31:44 PM PST, "Pluted Pup" <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2025 19:53:55 -0800, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 1, 2025 at 4:51:12 PM PST, "Pluted Pup"<plutedpup@outlook.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 16:34:00 -0800, BTR1701 wrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 2025 at 3:06:45 PM PST, "Alan Smithee"<alms@last.inc> wrote:
> >
> > > 1,000 artists release a silent album to protest AI taking their works...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >https://www.techspot.com/news/106909-over-1000-musicians-release-silent-album-protest-ai.html
> > I've never understood the claim that training AI systems on books, music,
> > etc.
> > is a copyright violation in the first place.
> >
> > The AI isn't making an unauthorized copy of the work. It's reading (or
> > listening to ) the work and learning from it. This isn't any different
> > athan
> > human being reading a book and learning from it.
> >
> > Some have said, well, the AI makes a copy of the work in its brain while
> > it's
> > learning but the same can be said of a human. Why is one a (supposed) >>> > > copyright violation but the other is not?
>
> You use your brain to violate copyright law or tell a computer
> to violate copyright law and you say the computer user should get a free
> pass?
No, I'm saying that a human reading a book with her brain DOESN'T violate >>> copyright law, so why should a computer reading a book with its brain
become a
violation?
No, I am saying that someone committing copyright fraud with computers
shouldn't be exonerated while only those using their own brain to
commit copyright fraud should be prosecuted.
I have no idea what you're talking about. No one's being prosecuted for committing "copyright fraud' (whatever that is) with their brains.
That's mindless.
Indeed.
Me (to Microsoft Bing):
Which word in this question is misspeled?
Microsoft Bing (to me):
The word that is misspelled in the question is "wieht".
The correct spelling is "weight".
On 3/1/2025 11:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 1, 2025 at 8:31:44 PM PST, "Pluted Pup" <plutedpup@outlook.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2025 19:53:55 -0800, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 1, 2025 at 4:51:12 PM PST, "Pluted Pup"<plutedpup@outlook.com> >>>> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 16:34:00 -0800, BTR1701 wrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 2025 at 3:06:45 PM PST, "Alan Smithee"<alms@last.inc> wrote:
> >
> > > 1,000 artists release a silent album to protest AI taking their >>>>>>> works...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
https://www.techspot.com/news/106909-over-1000-musicians-release-silent-album-protest-ai.html
> > I've never understood the claim that training AI systems on books, >>>>>> music,
> > etc.
> > is a copyright violation in the first place.
> >
> > The AI isn't making an unauthorized copy of the work. It's reading (or
> > listening to ) the work and learning from it. This isn't any different
> > athan
> > human being reading a book and learning from it.
> >
> > Some have said, well, the AI makes a copy of the work in its brain while
> > it's
> > learning but the same can be said of a human. Why is one a (supposed)
> > copyright violation but the other is not?
>
> You use your brain to violate copyright law or tell a computer
> to violate copyright law and you say the computer user should get a free
> pass?
No, I'm saying that a human reading a book with her brain DOESN'T violate
copyright law, so why should a computer reading a book with its brain >>>> become a
violation?
No, I am saying that someone committing copyright fraud with computers
shouldn't be exonerated while only those using their own brain to
commit copyright fraud should be prosecuted.
I have no idea what you're talking about. No one's being prosecuted for
committing "copyright fraud' (whatever that is) with their brains.
That's mindless.
Indeed.
While you can't copyright ideas, you can copyright *expressions* of
ideas. When you read a book and understand its ideas, you can then
freely voice them from your understanding. If, however, you *don't* understand the ideas, and instead merely parrot their expression from
the book, you violate copyright.
AIs, as yet, have no claim of such
understanding, and instead rely on (sophisticated) parroting.
On 2/26/2025 9:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
I don't pay for the books in my local library? Am I committing a copyright >> violation by reading them?
You are if you read them to someone else.
On Mar 2, 2025 at 9:16:51 AM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 3/1/2025 11:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 1, 2025 at 8:31:44 PM PST, "Pluted Pup" <plutedpup@outlook.com> >>> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2025 19:53:55 -0800, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 1, 2025 at 4:51:12 PM PST, "Pluted Pup"<plutedpup@outlook.com> >>>>> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 16:34:00 -0800, BTR1701 wrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 2025 at 3:06:45 PM PST, "Alan Smithee"<alms@last.inc> wrote:
> >
> > > 1,000 artists release a silent album to protest AI taking their >>>>>>>> works...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
https://www.techspot.com/news/106909-over-1000-musicians-release-silent-album-protest-ai.html
> > I've never understood the claim that training AI systems on books,
> > etc.music,
> > is a copyright violation in the first place.
> >
> > The AI isn't making an unauthorized copy of the work. It's reading (or
> > listening to ) the work and learning from it. This isn't any different
> > athan
> > human being reading a book and learning from it.
> >
> > Some have said, well, the AI makes a copy of the work in its brain while
> > it's
> > learning but the same can be said of a human. Why is one a (supposed)
> > copyright violation but the other is not?
>
> You use your brain to violate copyright law or tell a computer >>>>> > to violate copyright law and you say the computer user should get a free
> pass?
No, I'm saying that a human reading a book with her brain DOESN'T violate
copyright law, so why should a computer reading a book with its brain >>>>> become a
violation?
No, I am saying that someone committing copyright fraud with computers >>>> shouldn't be exonerated while only those using their own brain to
commit copyright fraud should be prosecuted.
I have no idea what you're talking about. No one's being prosecuted for >>> committing "copyright fraud' (whatever that is) with their brains.
That's mindless.
Indeed.
While you can't copyright ideas, you can copyright *expressions* of
ideas. When you read a book and understand its ideas, you can then
freely voice them from your understanding. If, however, you *don't*
understand the ideas, and instead merely parrot their expression from
the book, you violate copyright.
No, you violate copyright when you copy a work without permission. Based on the language in the statute and the court cases interpreting it over the last 40 years or so, the AI models in no way are creating legal copies of the works
in question when they amalgamate the knowledge and facts found in millions of books to answer people's questions on the internet.
AIs, as yet, have no claim of such
understanding, and instead rely on (sophisticated) parroting.
On 3/2/2025 4:34 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 2, 2025 at 9:16:51 AM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 3/1/2025 11:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 1, 2025 at 8:31:44 PM PST, "Pluted Pup" <plutedpup@outlook.com> >>>> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2025 19:53:55 -0800, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 1, 2025 at 4:51:12 PM PST, "Pluted Pup"<plutedpup@outlook.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 16:34:00 -0800, BTR1701 wrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 2025 at 3:06:45 PM PST, "Alan
> >Smithee"<alms@last.inc> wrote:
> > > 1,000 artists release a silent album to protest AI taking their
> > >works...
> > >
> > >
> >
https://www.techspot.com/news/106909-over-1000-musicians-release-silent-album-protest-ai.html
> > I've never understood the claim that training AI systems on books,
> > etc.music,
> > is a copyright violation in the first place.
> >
> > The AI isn't making an unauthorized copy of the work. It's reading (or
> > listening to ) the work and learning from it. This isn't any different
> > athan
> > human being reading a book and learning from it.
> >
> > Some have said, well, the AI makes a copy of the work in its >>>>>>>> brain while
> > it's
> > learning but the same can be said of a human. Why is one a (supposed)
> > copyright violation but the other is not?
>
> You use your brain to violate copyright law or tell a computer >>>>>> > to violate copyright law and you say the computer user should get >>>>>>> a free
> pass?
No, I'm saying that a human reading a book with her brain DOESN'T >>>>>> violate
copyright law, so why should a computer reading a book with its brain
become a
violation?
No, I am saying that someone committing copyright fraud with computers >>>>> shouldn't be exonerated while only those using their own brain to >>>>> commit copyright fraud should be prosecuted.
I have no idea what you're talking about. No one's being prosecuted for >>>> committing "copyright fraud' (whatever that is) with their brains.
That's mindless.
Indeed.
While you can't copyright ideas, you can copyright *expressions* of
ideas. When you read a book and understand its ideas, you can then
freely voice them from your understanding. If, however, you *don't*
understand the ideas, and instead merely parrot their expression from
the book, you violate copyright.
No, you violate copyright when you copy a work without permission. Based on >> the language in the statute and the court cases interpreting it over the
last
40 years or so, the AI models in no way are creating legal copies of the
works
in question when they amalgamate the knowledge and facts found in millions >> of
books to answer people's questions on the internet.
AIs, as yet, have no claim of such
understanding, and instead rely on (sophisticated) parroting.
Afaics, 'permission' isn't at issue here, and thus is irrelevant.
But what is "the amalgamation of knowledge"? If it's a level of
understanding that effectively discards the original rendering, then
there's no violation. If, otoh, it's the mere memorization of phrases, *without* any real understanding, then that violates copyright
(regardless of judicial miscarriage to the contrary).
"Booze works faster than chocolate"
wouldn't violate copyright, whereas:
"Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker"
would.
On Mar 2, 2025 at 2:53:29 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 3/2/2025 4:34 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 2, 2025 at 9:16:51 AM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 3/1/2025 11:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 1, 2025 at 8:31:44 PM PST, "Pluted Pup" <plutedpup@outlook.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2025 19:53:55 -0800, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 1, 2025 at 4:51:12 PM PST, "Pluted Pup"<plutedpup@outlook.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 16:34:00 -0800, BTR1701 wrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 2025 at 3:06:45 PM PST, "Alan
> >Smithee"<alms@last.inc> wrote:
> > > 1,000 artists release a silent album to protest AI taking their
> > >works...
> > >
> > >
> >
https://www.techspot.com/news/106909-over-1000-musicians-release-silent-album-protest-ai.html
> > I've never understood the claim that training AI systems on books,
> > etc.music,
> > is a copyright violation in the first place.
> >
> > The AI isn't making an unauthorized copy of the work. It's reading (or
> > listening to ) the work and learning from it. This isn't any different
> > athan
> > human being reading a book and learning from it.
> >
> > Some have said, well, the AI makes a copy of the work in its >>>>>>>>> brain while
> > it's
> > learning but the same can be said of a human. Why is one a (supposed)
> > copyright violation but the other is not?
>
> You use your brain to violate copyright law or tell a computer >>>>>>> > to violate copyright law and you say the computer user should get
a free> pass?
No, I'm saying that a human reading a book with her brain DOESN'T >>>>>>> violate
copyright law, so why should a computer reading a book with its brain
become a
violation?
No, I am saying that someone committing copyright fraud with computers
shouldn't be exonerated while only those using their own brain to >>>>>> commit copyright fraud should be prosecuted.
I have no idea what you're talking about. No one's being prosecuted for
committing "copyright fraud' (whatever that is) with their brains. >>>>>
That's mindless.
Indeed.
While you can't copyright ideas, you can copyright *expressions* of
ideas. When you read a book and understand its ideas, you can then
freely voice them from your understanding. If, however, you *don't* >>>> understand the ideas, and instead merely parrot their expression from >>>> the book, you violate copyright.
No, you violate copyright when you copy a work without permission. Based on
the language in the statute and the court cases interpreting it over the >>> last
40 years or so, the AI models in no way are creating legal copies of the >>> works
in question when they amalgamate the knowledge and facts found in millions
of
books to answer people's questions on the internet.
AIs, as yet, have no claim of such
understanding, and instead rely on (sophisticated) parroting.
Afaics, 'permission' isn't at issue here, and thus is irrelevant.
Permission and ownership are key elements of asserting a violation of copyright.
But what is "the amalgamation of knowledge"? If it's a level of
understanding that effectively discards the original rendering, then
there's no violation. If, otoh, it's the mere memorization of phrases,
*without* any real understanding, then that violates copyright
(regardless of judicial miscarriage to the contrary).
I'd love to [see] some citation to statute or precedent that makes your case.
"Booze works faster than chocolate"
wouldn't violate copyright, whereas:
"Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker"
would.
On 3/2/2025 6:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 2, 2025 at 2:53:29 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 3/2/2025 4:34 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 2, 2025 at 9:16:51 AM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 3/1/2025 11:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 1, 2025 at 8:31:44 PM PST, "Pluted Pup" <plutedpup@outlook.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2025 19:53:55 -0800, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 1, 2025 at 4:51:12 PM PST, "Pluted Pup"<plutedpup@outlook.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 16:34:00 -0800, BTR1701 wrote:
>
> > On Feb 26, 2025 at 3:06:45 PM PST, "Alan
> >Smithee"<alms@last.inc> wrote:
> > > 1,000 artists release a silent album to protest AI taking their
> > >works...
> > >
> > >
> >
https://www.techspot.com/news/106909-over-1000-musicians-release-silent-album-protest-ai.html
> > I've never understood the claim that training AI systems on books,
> > etc.music,
> > is a copyright violation in the first place.
> >
> > The AI isn't making an unauthorized copy of the work. It's >>>>>>>>>> reading (or
> > listening to ) the work and learning from it. This isn't >>>>>>>>>> any different
> > athan
> > human being reading a book and learning from it.
> >
> > Some have said, well, the AI makes a copy of the work in its
> > it'sbrain while
> > learning but the same can be said of a human. Why is one a >>>>>>>>>> (supposed)
> > copyright violation but the other is not?
>
> You use your brain to violate copyright law or tell a computer
> to violate copyright law and you say the computer user should get
a free> pass?
No, I'm saying that a human reading a book with her brain DOESN'T
violate
copyright law, so why should a computer reading a book with its brain
become a
violation?
No, I am saying that someone committing copyright fraud with computers
shouldn't be exonerated while only those using their own brain to >>>>>>> commit copyright fraud should be prosecuted.
I have no idea what you're talking about. No one's being prosecuted for
committing "copyright fraud' (whatever that is) with their brains. >>>>>>
That's mindless.
Indeed.
While you can't copyright ideas, you can copyright *expressions* of >>>>> ideas. When you read a book and understand its ideas, you can then >>>>> freely voice them from your understanding. If, however, you *don't* >>>>> understand the ideas, and instead merely parrot their expression from >>>>> the book, you violate copyright.
No, you violate copyright when you copy a work without permission.
Based on
the language in the statute and the court cases interpreting it over the
last
40 years or so, the AI models in no way are creating legal copies of the
works
in question when they amalgamate the knowledge and facts found in millions
of
books to answer people's questions on the internet.
AIs, as yet, have no claim of such
understanding, and instead rely on (sophisticated) parroting.
Afaics, 'permission' isn't at issue here, and thus is irrelevant.
Permission and ownership are key elements of asserting a violation of
copyright.
But what is "the amalgamation of knowledge"? If it's a level of
understanding that effectively discards the original rendering, then
there's no violation. If, otoh, it's the mere memorization of phrases,
*without* any real understanding, then that violates copyright
(regardless of judicial miscarriage to the contrary).
I'd love to [see] some citation to statute or precedent that makes your
case.
When our legal system catches up with my analysis, I'll send one along.
On Mar 2, 2025 at 7:31:38 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 3/2/2025 6:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 2, 2025 at 2:53:29 PM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>
On 3/2/2025 4:34 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 2, 2025 at 9:16:51 AM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 3/1/2025 11:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 1, 2025 at 8:31:44 PM PST, "Pluted Pup" <plutedpup@outlook.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 01 Mar 2025 19:53:55 -0800, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 1, 2025 at 4:51:12 PM PST, "Pluted Pup"<plutedpup@outlook.com>
wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 16:34:00 -0800, BTR1701 wrote: >>>>>>>>> >
> > On Feb 26, 2025 at 3:06:45 PM PST, "Alan
> >Smithee"<alms@last.inc> wrote:
> > > 1,000 artists release a silent album to protest AI taking their
> > >works...
> > >
> > >
> >
https://www.techspot.com/news/106909-over-1000-musicians-release-silent-album-protest-ai.html
> > I've never understood the claim that training AI systems on books,
> > etc.music,
> > is a copyright violation in the first place.
> >
> > The AI isn't making an unauthorized copy of the work. It's
> > listening to ) the work and learning from it. This isn't >>>>>>>>>>> any differentreading (or
> > athan
> > human being reading a book and learning from it. >>>>>>>>> > >
> > Some have said, well, the AI makes a copy of the work in its
> > it'sbrain while
> > learning but the same can be said of a human. Why is one a
> > copyright violation but the other is not?(supposed)
>
> You use your brain to violate copyright law or tell a computer
> to violate copyright law and you say the computer user should get
a free> pass?
No, I'm saying that a human reading a book with her brain DOESN'T
violate
copyright law, so why should a computer reading a book with its brain
become a
violation?
No, I am saying that someone committing copyright fraud with computers
shouldn't be exonerated while only those using their own brain to
commit copyright fraud should be prosecuted.
I have no idea what you're talking about. No one's being prosecuted for
committing "copyright fraud' (whatever that is) with their brains.
That's mindless.
Indeed.
While you can't copyright ideas, you can copyright *expressions* of >>>>>> ideas. When you read a book and understand its ideas, you can then >>>>>> freely voice them from your understanding. If, however, you *don't* >>>>>> understand the ideas, and instead merely parrot their expression from
the book, you violate copyright.
No, you violate copyright when you copy a work without permission. >>>>> Based on
the language in the statute and the court cases interpreting it over the
last
40 years or so, the AI models in no way are creating legal copies of the
works
in question when they amalgamate the knowledge and facts found in millions
of
books to answer people's questions on the internet.
AIs, as yet, have no claim of such
understanding, and instead rely on (sophisticated) parroting.
Afaics, 'permission' isn't at issue here, and thus is irrelevant.
Permission and ownership are key elements of asserting a violation of
copyright.
But what is "the amalgamation of knowledge"? If it's a level of
understanding that effectively discards the original rendering, then >>>> there's no violation. If, otoh, it's the mere memorization of phrases, >>>> *without* any real understanding, then that violates copyright
(regardless of judicial miscarriage to the contrary).
I'd love to [see] some citation to statute or precedent that makes your >>> case.
When our legal system catches up with my analysis, I'll send one along.
Well, as long you acknowledge that your claim is merely your opinion and nothing more.
The AI isn't paying for the work and the works in question aren't free
for anyone to use.
I don't pay for the books in my local library? Am I committing a copyright >violation by reading them?
I don't pay for the books in my local library? Am I committing a copyright >> violation by reading them?
You are if you read them to someone else.
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 11:50:35 -0500, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
I don't pay for the books in my local library? Am I committing a copyright >>> violation by reading them?
You are if you read them to someone else.
Then I certainly did when my kids were small and more recently to my 3
year old granddaughter.
Then I certainly did when my kids were small and more recently to my 3
year old granddaughter.
And we wonder why kids today have no respect for the law. Fortunately
for you, there's a grandfather clause...
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 11:04:57 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Then I certainly did when my kids were small and more recently to my 3
year old granddaughter.
And we wonder why kids today have no respect for the law. Fortunately
for you, there's a grandfather clause...
So I would be safe and my late wife wouldn't? (Reading to my
granddaughter that is?)
On 4/28/2025 2:55 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 11:04:57 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Then I certainly did when my kids were small and more recently to my 3 >>>> year old granddaughter.
And we wonder why kids today have no respect for the law. Fortunately
for you, there's a grandfather clause...
So I would be safe and my late wife wouldn't? (Reading to my
granddaughter that is?)
Your wife could pick the book.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 00:35:49 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,570 |