• Rose@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Private use of the copyrighted works is pretty much a separate topic entirely.

    And while the law isn’t settled on the topic, it’s wrong to argue AI training is something that happens entirely in a private setting, especially when that work is made available publicly in some form or another.

    Sure, there’s a problem with the current copyright laws that has to be addressed. It’s quite similar to the “TiVo loophole” in OSS licenses. It was addressed, and certainly not in favour of the loophole exploiters. That one could be fixed on licence level because it was ultimately a licence question, but the AI training question, however, needs to be taken to the legislation level. Internationally, too.

    • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I don’t think this precedence will ever get set because we don’t have universal global IP protections. The west will never set it due to fear of China winning the AI race.

      In their opinion (which I agree with) this is the greater good and someone’s mastodon posts or similar being fed to AI training machine is a lesser evil compared to losing technological advantage to the biggest authoritarian state in the world.