this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2025
1214 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

66584 readers
7572 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 4) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com 72 points 2 days ago (16 children)

Sam Altman is a grifter, but on this topic he is right.

The reality is, that IP laws in their current form hamper innovation and technological development. Stephan Kinsella has written on this topic for the past 25 years or so and has argued to reform the system.

Here in the Netherlands, we know that it's true. Philips became a great company because they could produce lightbulbs here, which were patented in the UK. We also had a booming margarine business, because we weren't respecting British and French patents and that business laid the foundation for what became Unilever.

And now China is using those exact same tactics to build up their industry. And it gives them a huge competitive advantage.

A good reform would be to revert back to the way copyright and patent law were originally developed, with much shorter terms and requiring a significant fee for a one time extension.

The current terms, lobbied by Disney, are way too restrictive.

load more comments (16 replies)

I'll take him seriously if & when OpenAI lives up to its name.

[–] sloppychops@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 day ago

If everyone can 'train' themselves on copyrighted works, then I say "fair game.''

Otherwise, get fucked.

[–] RejZoR@lemmy.ml 52 points 2 days ago (10 children)

That's like calling stealing from shops essential for my existence and it would be "over" for me if they stop me. The shit these clowns say is just astounding. It's like they have no morals and no self awareness and awareness for people around them.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

In the early 80s I used to have fantasies about having a foster ~~robot~~ android that my family was teaching how to be a person. Oh the amusing mix-ups we got into! We could just do that. Train on experiential reality instead of on the dim cultural reflection of reality.

Edit: "robot" means "slave"

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 75 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Good if AI fails because it can't abuse copyright. Fuck AI.

*except the stuff used for science that isn't trained on copyrighted scraped data, that use is fine

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] barnaclebutt@lemmy.world 35 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Look we may have driven Aaron Swartz to suicide for doing basically the same thing on a smaller scale, but dammit we are getting very rich of this. And, if we are getting rich, then it is okay to break the law while actively fucking over actually creative people. Trust us. We are tech bros and we know what is best for you is for us to become incredibly rich and out of touch. You need us.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Rhoeri@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

What a giant load of crap.

[–] flop_leash_973@lemmy.world 25 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Sounds like another way of saying "there actually isn't a profitable business in this."

But since we live in crazy world, once he gets his exemption to copyright laws for AI, someone needs to come up with a good self hosted AI toolset that makes it legal for the average person to pirate stuff at scale as well.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 17 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Gentlemen, this is democracy manifest!

What is the charge, officer? Eating a meal? A succulent Chinese meal?

[–] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 day ago

If I'm using "AI" to generate subtitles for the "community" is ok if i have a large "datastore" of "licensable media" stored locally to work off of right?

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If your business model only works if you break the Law, that mean's you're just another Organised Crime group.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] graff@lemm.ee 24 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If training an ai on copyrighted material is fair use, then piracy is archiving

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kipo@lemm.ee 18 points 1 day ago
[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 day ago

Come on bro, let us pirate bro, just one more ngram of books bro

[–] Jericho_One@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago
[–] Konstant@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago

Suddenly millions of people are downloading to "train their AI models".

[–] momodocho@lemmings.world 6 points 1 day ago
[–] criss_cross@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago (1 children)

So Deepmind is good to train on your models then right?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ccunning@lemmy.world 42 points 2 days ago (8 children)

Whoever brings Aaron Swartz back gets to violate all the copyright laws

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] HalfSalesman@lemm.ee 14 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (8 children)

I hope generative AI obliterates copyright. I hope that its destruction is so thorough that we either forget it ever existed or we talk about it in disgust as something that only existed in stupider times.

[–] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 12 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Thing is that copywrite did serve a purpose and was for like 20 years before disney got it extended to the nth degree. The idea was the authors had a chance to make money but were expected to be prolific enough to have more writings by the time 20 years was over. I would like to see with patents that once you get one you have a limited time to go to market. Maybe 10 years and if you product is ever not available for purchase (at a cost equivalent to the average cost accounted for inflation or something) you lose the patent so others can produce it. So like stop making an attachment for a product and now anyone can.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Xanza@lemm.ee 30 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Then die. I don't know what else to tell you.

If your business model is predicated on breaking the law then you don't deserve to exist.

You can't send people to prison for 5 years and charge them $100,000 for downloading a movie and then turn around and let big business do it for free because they need to "train their AI model" and call one of thief but not the other...

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›