| ▲ | qarl 5 hours ago |
| We're not talking about rights, we're talking about illegal acts. If it's illegal for a machine to do it, how can it be ok for a human? Just from a rational argumentation point of view. Clearly if a law is written saying as much, then sure. But there is no such copyright law like that yet. |
|
| ▲ | pkaeding 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| But machines don't do things. People do things, and they use tools/machines to do those things more easily or efficiently. |
| |
| ▲ | qarl 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | My apologies - I'm speaking loosely of course. Translate all my claims about machines breaking the law into claims about humans using machine breaking the law. | | |
| ▲ | pkaeding 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sorry, I wasn't trying to be pedantic. I was trying to make the point (which I think is in line with your point) that the fact that AI is involved here doesn't make a difference. It is a tool, but the people using the tool are (as always) responsible for the outcome. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | NoOn3 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The issue is certainly not so simple. But it seems to me, purely theoretically, that the rules don't necessarily have to be the same for living people and non-living machines. |
| |
| ▲ | qarl 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well - actually - it is pretty simple. For something to be illegal, there must be a law saying it's illegal. There are no laws distinguishing humans from machines in copyright law. | | |
| ▲ | triceratops 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > There are no laws distinguishing humans from machines in copyright law Correct. Because until very recently there was no need. | | |
|
|
