General_Effort

Copyright is utterly corrupted. Besides, I believe it is corrosive and outright dangerous in the age of the internet. Every time you open a website or a stream or anything, that is copied to your device. In the age of the printing press, it was about what happened in a few "factories"/printing houses. Libraries were fine because they didn't copy, but online libraries do. Now, copyright is about all our communications. Total enforcement would mean total surveillance.

So this is not a defense of copyright. It is simply an explanation.

Building products for sale is what US-copyright is all about. Think about the copyright clause: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Without copyright, everything would be public domain. Everyone would be free to share any book or movie. That makes it hard to make money, to monetize your product, to recoup your investment. Copyright is supposed to be a way to enable that. It's supposed to create an incentive to entertain you. If you have to pay for your entertainment, then someone will come along and entertain you to get your money. Piracy is an attack on that system.

If AI companies have to buy licenses, that would not incentivize much of anything. Licensing curated datasets for AI training would be one thing, but paying for individual books or even Reddit posts makes no sense. It would just make development slower and much more expensive. That makes it an unconstitutional use of copyright.

Well, it's what they believe. What exactly is the problem there? I have never been called a murderer. There just aren't that many vegans around. I don't know in what kind of circles this would be a common occurrence.

Let's engage in a little fantasy. Someone invents a magic machine that is able to duplicate apartments, condos, houses, ... You want to live in New York? You can copy yourself a penthouse overlooking the Central Park for just a few cents. It's magic. You don't need space. It's all in a pocket dimension like the Tardis or whatever. Awesome, right? Of course, not everyone would like that. The owner of that penthouse, for one. Their multi-million dollar investment is suddenly almost worthless. They would certainly demand that you must not copy their property without consent. And so would a lot of people. And what about the poor construction workers, ask the owners of constructions companies? And who will pay to have any new house built?

So in this fantasy story, the government goes and bans the magic copy machine. Taxes are raised to create a big new police bureau to monitor the country and to make sure that no one use such a machine without a license.

That's turned from magical wish fulfillment into a dystopian story. A society that rejects living in a rent-free wonderland but instead chooses to make itself poor. People work to ensure poverty, not to create wealth.

You get that I'm talking about data, information, knowledge. The first magic machine was the printing press. Now we have computers and the Internet.

I'm not talking about a utopian vision here. Facts, scientific theories, mathematical theorems, ... All such is free for all. Inventors can get patents, but only for 20 years and only if they publish them. They can keep their invention secret and take their chances. But if they want a government enforced monopoly, they must publish their inventions so that others may learn from it.

In the US, that's how the Constitution demands it. The copyright clause: [The United States Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Cutting down on Fair Use makes everyone poorer and only a very few, very rich people richer. Have you ever thought about where the money goes if AI training requires a license?

For example, to Reddit, because Reddit has rights to all those posts. So do Facebook and Xitter. Of course, there's also old money, like the NYT or Getty. The NYT has the rights to all their old issue about a century back. If AI training requires a license, they can sell all their old newspapers again. That's pure profit. Do you think they will their employees raises out of the pure goodness of their heart if they win their lawsuits? They have no legal or economics reason to do so. The belief that this would happen is trickle-down economics.

This paperwork is required by EU regulation (Digital Services Act - DSA).

It is theoretically possible to be excepted but I doubt OP has any chance there.

They are a small, harmless minority. Isn't that enough? Maybe it's made worse by the fact that they are perceived as non-violent and effeminate, because of their strong opposition to suffering, even when the victims are helpless, like animals. There is no personal risk in bullying them. It's like the hate for environmental activists, trans-women, or liberals in general. I wouldn't know that vegans aggressively proselytize their life-style if people didn't aggressively tell me so; something that they share with "the gays". Of course, people wouldn't mind if they didn't shove it in their faces all the time. Where have I heard that before?

I was just being sarcastic. The article is explicit that there is a copyright organization behind this.

In what country is that?

Under US law, you cannot copyright recipes. You can own a specific text in which you explain the recipe. But anyone can write down the same ingredients and instructions in a different way and own that text.

SMITH created thousands of accounts on the Streaming Platforms (the “Bot Accounts”) that he could use to stream songs. He then used software to cause the Bot Accounts to continuously stream songs that he owned. At a certain point in the charged time period, SMITH estimated that he could use the Bot Accounts to generate approximately 661,440 streams per day, yielding annual royalties of $1,207,128.

From the original press release: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/north-carolina-musician-charged-music-streaming-fraud-aided-artificial-intelligence

Kinda funny how the term "AI" drowns out all rational thought and reading comprehension. Of course, that's why it's there in the clickbait headline. I avoid news sources that pull that sort of thing. I don't appreciate being manipulated.

It's more about copying, really.

That’s why no one gets sued for downloading.

People do get sued in some countries. EG Germany. I think they stopped in the US because of the bad publicity.

What these lawsuits against OpenAI are claiming is that OpenAI is making a derivative work of the authors/owners works.

That theory is just crazy. I think it's already been thrown out of all these suits.

Yes, that's exactly the point. It should belong to humanity, which means that anyone can use it to improve themselves. Or to create something nice for themselves or others. That's exactly what AI companies are doing. And because it is not stealing, it is all still there for anyone else. Unless, of course, the copyrightists get there way.

I didn't make the point clear. The original scenes themselves, as released by the studio, may qualify as "deepfakes". A little bit of digital post-processing can be enough to qualify them under the proposed bills. Then sharing them becomes criminal, fair use be damned.

That's easy. The movie studios know what post-production went into the scenes and have the documents to prove it. They can easily prove that such clips fall under deepfake laws.

Y'all need to be more cynical. These lobby groups do not make arguments because they believe in them, but because it gets them what they want.