So you're against copyright protection, but also against AI using copyrighted work? I can understand both of those positions separately, but how can you combine them in the same statement?

▲

rustcleaner an hour ago | parent | next [-]

>So you're against copyright protection

Yes, I am. Copyright is legalized plunder of anyone who does not pay a protection fee for a "license" to not be plundered. Going after torrenters and people trying to regain functionality on their thermostats and 3D printers is legalized plunder.

▲

0123456789ABCDE 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

there are two different things — one can be against the idea of copyright property, or just copyright laws as written into the legal system, while holding the expectation these should apply to everyone equally

▲

bryanrasmussen 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean one can be for copyright protection but against the DMCA as a bad way to implement copyright protection.

▲

flexagoon 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Sure, there are plenty of things to dislike about DMCA or any other modern copyright law, but in this context the discussion was specifically about using DMCA to take down an unauthorized republishing of a copyrighted book online, which is a pretty normal application of copyright law. So I don't really understand how "AI is bad because it's trained on stolen work" but also "it's bad to take legal action against people distributing your work".

	▲	bryanrasmussen 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There seem to be people who believe that the DMCA is a morally compromised instrument. There are people that believe that using a morally compromised instrument to do a moral end is always bad. "AI is bad because it's trained on stolen work therefore we must never use AI, even if our ends are good" is such a belief that many people seem to have, and there seems to be some likelihood that the original poster might be such a person. Therefore it seems to me reasonable to believe that a person who maybe believes that you must never use AI because it is trained on stolen work, could also believe that you must never use the DMCA because it is based on bad and corrupted law. I myself do not exactly believe these things, although I consider they may have some arguments for them, albeit not arguments likely to persuade me in all instances, nonetheless I do not find any difficulty in believing someone could hold both opinions at the same time and I think, in fact, it is a reasonably consistent pair of opinions, especially given the apparent ability of people to believe all sorts of inconsistent things day to day.

▲

rustcleaner an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Lehman (a lobbyist) did an end-run around congress to the WIPO, to use treaty law to force the passage of the DMCA.