Sorry, but what you just said is bullshit, and I'm not even sure you know it.

Plenty of copyright holders don't want their creations to be trained on LLMs, regardless of cut. There is no voice for them.

The general statement of laws being applied differently by size is also more and more obvious in the recent climate.

▲

NoMoreNicksLeft 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

The big copyright cartels are the only copyright holders out there. The people you refer to think they hold copyright on some work or another, but unless another plebe infringes on them, they'll never get a remedy for that.

You think I'm wrong, but if you wrote a song (for instance) and some jackass restaurant was playing it as muzak, ASCAP takes the license money for that. They don't send you a cut. I'd say you have second class rights, but you don't even really have those.

▲

terminalshort 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

flumpcakes 2 days ago | parent [-]

Then the AI training companies shouldn't have stolen (pirated) the material they want to train on. Pretty simple really.

▲

terminalshort 2 days ago | parent [-]

That has nothing to do with AI. It's just the same as if anyone else had pirated it. Pretty simple really.

▲

flumpcakes 2 days ago | parent [-]

Show me the Facebook employees going to jail for pirating millions of books. Can I pirate anything I want risk free if I say it was for training AI?

▲

terminalshort 2 days ago | parent [-]

Piracy is a civil offense so of course they aren't going to jail because that isn't how civil court works.

▲

elsjaako a day ago | parent | next [-]

It can be both, there have been people criminally prosecuted for copyright infringement.

I will admit that it's not something that I follow daily, so I had to look for an example. But it wasn't hard to find one.

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/055157.P.pdf

	▲	terminalshort a day ago \| parent [-]
		Criminal piracy is commercial piracy, which not even the people suing AI companies are accusing them of doing. Note the very first line in your court opinion: > After selling 100 "bootleg" DVDs But that's a fair point. I probably should have specified.

▲

kakacik a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Seems you keep repeating the same stance all over thread, without a single explanation why your opinion should be a valid one.

Not really a fruitful discussion and not a way to change anyone's opinions (maybe apart from the idea that copyright owners push their rather despised agenda via artificial accounts also on HN), care to improve this?

	▲	terminalshort a day ago \| parent [-]
		I don't have to explain because judges will do it for me: https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/two-california-distr... On summary judgment too, which means the plaintiffs really had no case. Not surprising because it's the most obvious fair use ever under transformative work. So obvious that I have a hard time taking arguments to the contrary seriously and just assume they are driven by bitterness. Not that anything I have ever heard on that side actually rises to the level of an argument. Your opinion, and everyone else on this thread that agrees with you, falls under your own statement: > Seems you keep repeating the same stance all over thread, without a single explanation why your opinion should be a valid one.