758
Top EU Court Says There’s No Right To Online Anonymity, Because Copyright Is More Important
(www.techdirt.com)
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024
758 points (98.0% liked)
Technology
59589 readers
2891 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is so stupid since several thousand devices can use one IP address. NAT exists.
If I download music in a Starbucks, can they fine the Starbucks CEO then?
Anyway I hope I hope online artists, and authors are able to use this to sue AI companies for stealing their copyrighted works.
The background is that French law requires ISPs to retain the IPs of their customer for some time. That way, an IP address can be associated with a customer.
A CEO is an employee. You generally can't sue employees for this sort of thing. It may be possible to sue the company as a whole for enabling the copyright infringement, but that's not to do with this case. Perhaps in the future, operators of WiFi-hotspots will be required to use something like Youtube's Content ID system.
They can use this to go after "pirates". It's got nothing to do with AI.
Machine learning steals copyrighted material from artists and authors. Those servers have IP addresses too.
Why is a company allowed to track people from taking pirating their copyrighted content, but artists aren't allowed to do the same to companies making a profit off their work?
Artists are allowed to do the exact same thing. That's probably not a helpful answer, but it's the correct answer to your question. You're making some wrong assumptions about the law, and probably about the economics, as well. Writing a proper explanation would take me quite a while and I'm not sure if it would be appreciated.
There are some companies, EG Adobe and Shutterstock, that offer "commercially safe" image generators trained on licensed images. Artists who would like to make money by licensing images for AI training can deal with them.
Pretty sure getty has stolen publically licenced cc0 images off of Wikipedia and have even started going after the original authors of these images and people using the images even though getting stole them in the first place if I'm remembering my company controversies correctly in relation to stock companies