Technology
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nonsense. If this is copyright the payout will be many billions. They've had a year to think about it.
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.
A court wouldn't look favourably on that.
Rights couldn't have been very b important if you just let it run.
They really don't care. It can take a lot of time to put a solid case together and you're better off having a solid case than a quick trial.