Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

62327 readers

165 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others

Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

🏴‍☠️ Other communities

FUCK ADOBE!

[email protected]

Torrenting/P2P:

Gaming:

💰 Please help cover server costs.


Ko-fi	Liberapay

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Meta Secures Bittersweet Fair Use Victory in AI 'Piracy' Case (torrentfreak.com)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In a pivotal moment for artificial intelligence and copyright law, Meta has secured a bittersweet partial fair use victory in its defense of a 'piracy' lawsuit filed by several book authors. While granting Meta summary judgment on specific claims, the court outlined how copyright challenges against AI developers might succeed in the future. The decision emphasizes the critical importance of proving potential market harm, specifically by AI-generated books.

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

[–] [email protected] 8 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

This is the argument that bothers me:

The court also identified a third argument, which the authors didn’t pursue in great detail; market dilution. Under this theory, AI models trained on copyrighted works can generate “countless works that compete with the originals, even if those works aren’t themselves infringing,” Judge Chhabria wrote.

So, even if what you make isn't infringing on their rights, its still competing with them which should be forbidden. That whole argument is a machine shouldn't be allowed to compete with a human. So, if I am inspired by another's work, that's ok, but if a machine does that we need to ban it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 hours ago

The latter part makes sense to me tbh. Machines should not allowed to compete with humans (in creative endeavours) because it is an intrinsically unfair competition that further erodes the rights of those humans who are more vulnerable, in the circumstance that is opposite to the intent of having machines around in the first place. They are supposed to do our beast-of-burden work, not make it so that our only pending value to be extracted by capitalism is beast-of-burden work.

What I'm not sure I buy is the idea that the "countless works" generated by AI actually compete with the original, in particular if they are non-infringing. Let's say I take the work of an author to train an AI on their style. The author writes exclusively noir; I instruct the AI to generate college drama in the same style. Are the new works competing? The author won't offer me a college drama in the first place.

load more comments (1 replies)