it is (... was) there to use for anyone, on the condition that the license is followed

which they don't

and no self-serving sophistry about "it's transformative fair use" counts as respecting the license

rpdillon 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The license only has force because of copyright. For better or for worse, the courts decide what is transformative fair use.

Characterizing the discussion behind this as "sophistry" is a fundamentally unserious take.

For a serious take, I recommend reading the copyright office's 100 plus page document that they released in May. It makes it clear that there are a bunch of cases that are non-transformative, particularly when they affect the market for the original work and compete with it. But there's also clearly cases that are transformative when no such competition exists, and the training material was obtained legally.

https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...

I'm not particularly sympathetic to voices on HN that attempt to remove all nuance from this discussion. It's challenging enough topic as is.

▲

blibble 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> For better or for worse, the courts decide what is transformative fair use.

thankfully, I don't live under the US regime

there is no concept of fair use in my country

▲

Capricorn2481 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Characterizing the discussion behind this as "sophistry" is a fundamentally unserious take

What a joke. Sorry, but no. I don't think is unserious at all. What's unserious is saying this.

> and the training material was obtained legally

And assuming everyone should take it at face value. I hope you understand that going on a tech forum and telling people they aren't being nuanced because a Judge in Alabama that can barely unlock their phone weighed in on a massively novel technology with global implications, yes, reads deeply unserious. We're aware the U.S. legal system is a failure and the rest of the world suffers for it. Even your President routinely steals music for campaign events, and stole code for Truth Social. Your copyright is a joke that's only there to serve the fattest wallets.

These judges are not elected, they are appointed by people whose pockets are lined by these very corporations. They don't serve us, they are here to retrofit the law to make illegal things corporations do, legal. What you wrote is thought terminating.

	▲	rpdillon 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What I wrote is an encouragement to investigate the actual state of the law when you're talking about legal topics. That's the opposite of thought-terminating.

▲

jama211 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

*in your opinion