FreedomAdvocate

That arguments not going to be of any use then.

They don’t do that.

Hit the nail on the head.

So you’re talking morally? Sorry but that’s not even worth discussing here.

But they didn’t use it for any of those purposes. Training an AI model isn’t doing any of that. Which do you think they did specifically?

Humans can learn from any copyrighted material they want to. Copyright doesn’t, and can’t, prevent that.

And I don’t care :)

That’s not what AI is doing though. A better analogy using your book example would be learning a book by heart, then going and writing a new book in that same style.

Is that illegal? No.

Randomly generated. Go to Google and type randomly generated username and have at it.

Keep your conspiracy theories plausible. You’re failing.

The underlying technology I am talking about.

a) No one is suggesting AI be regarded as equal to a person under law though?

b) if the music is being streamed then it’s up to the streaming company to pay the artists royalties. I have Spotify and I don’t pay the artists - Spotify does.

If the argument is “the people feeding data into the AI illegally acquired the content” then sure, argue that and prosecute them for piracy or whatever. That’s not the argument that is being made though.

They do, but the point still stands. No one “owns” what these AIs are learning. That’s what they’re doing - learning, and they’re learning from copyrighted material the same way people learn from copyrighted material. The copyright holders - mainly artists - are just super upset about it because it’s showing that what they provide can be easily learned and emulated by computers.

They’re the horse and carriage sellers when cars were invented.