I kinda teared up on that article. What hope they had.
For all wondering, this was written in 2007, speculating on the future. It flat out starts by saying they know they’ll be wrong by making these guesses.
They thought we’d have a lunar colony by 2022. Instead we gave ourselves two shots to the feet and looking at the shiny down the barrel.
If not user data and network security concerns, what? Why the ban/sale song and dance?
Wasn’t the whole thing about China scooping up loads of data?
So give a copy of that data to one of the worlds largest advertiser/online markets and license behavioural data from the “baddies”. Yeah, that’ll fix everything.
Everybody loses.
Reminds me of an episode or two of Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
Mac moonlighting in graphic design again?
They do have a proxy service, but it is optional. I have it disabled because my server is faster.
I could see the proxy slipping behind a paywall as that feature has costs, but web accessibility? That’s basic function of a video server.
Just pointing out clickbait. They don’t even accurately reference their own articles. I stopped reading after that.
These devices are almost always listening, and the companies behind them are already collecting our data.
Uh oh! Clicks scary link
The good news is, they aren’t recording all the time … and when they are activated accidentally, the recordings are typically short.
:/ alrightythen
Fair use is based on a four-factor analysis that considers the purpose of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount used, and the effect on the market for the original work.
It is ambiguous, and limited, tested on a case-by-case basis which makes this time in Copyright so interesting.
The first article has some good points taken very literally. I see how they arrive at some conclusions. They break it down step by step very well. Copyright is merky as hell, I’ll give them that, but the final generated product is what’s important in court.
The second paper, while well written, is more of a press piece. But they do touch on one important part relevant to this conversation:
The LCA principles also make the careful and critical distinction between input to train an LLM, and output—which could potentially be infringing if it is substantially similar to an original expressive work.
This is important because a prompt “create a picture of ____ in the style of _____” can absolutely generate output from specific sampled copyright material, which courts have required royalty payments in the past. An LLM can also sample a voice of a voice actor so accurately as to be confused with the real thing. There have been Union strikes over this.
All in all, this is new territory, part of the fun of evolving laws. If you remove the generative part of AI, would that be enough?
Enlighten me. I hope I read it wrong.
It sounds like the EFF is advocating stripping/ignoring copyright information (as is currently done) when generating LLM’s to ease burden of small startups tracking down copyright owners. Something I had to do in productions and yeah, it sucked, but it’s how it works. (Radio is a tad different)
Wow, EFF. You’ve been a beacon of light in countless fights, but I did a doubletake on this article. Are you really implying that simply being on the internet is subject to business free-for-all?
I had to have read that wrong. It is absolutely the responsibility of any creative business to track and audit all copyrighted works used in deliverables.
AI, being the business of scooping up massive amounts of data, should absolutely have some sort of metadata log referencing copyrighted works. This is not the burden of small business, but standard practice for AI.
*AI is like reading and should be fair use
No, it certainly is not. Creating a compressed efficient database for search engines to reference and point users is fair use. Using that database to generate new work is not. AI is inherently generative.
Bingo. I was being more general in my response, but that is the more technical way of putting it.
First off, I’m by far no lawyer, but it was covered in a couple classes.
According to law as I know it, question 1 yes if there is no encryption, and question 2 no.
In reality, if you keep it for personal use, artists don’t care. A library however, isn’t personal use and they have to jump through more hoops than a circus especially when it comes to digital media.
But you raise a great point! I’d love to see a law library train AI for in-house use and test the system!
By gatekeeping I mean the use of digital methods to verify or restrict use of purchased copyright material after a sale such as Digital rights management, encryption such as CSS/AACS/HDCP, or obfuscation.
The whole “you didn’t buy a copy, you bought a license” BS undermines what copyright was supposed to be IMO.
Copyright has not, was not intended to, and does not currently, pay artists.
You are correct, copyright is ownership, not income. I own the copyright for all my work (but not work for hire) and what I do with it is my discretion.
What is income, is the content I sell for the price acceptable to the buyer. Copyright (as originally conceived) is my protection so someone doesn’t take my work and use it to undermine my skillset. One of the reasons why penalties for copyright infringement don’t need actual damages and why Facebook (and other AI companies) are starting to sweat bullets and hire lawyers.
That said, as a creative who relied on artistic income and pays other creatives appropriately, modern copyright law is far, far overreaching and in need of major overhaul. Gatekeeping was never the intent of early copyright and can fuck right off; if I paid for it, they don’t get to say no.
That’s a good litmus test. If asking/paying artists to train your AI destroys your business model, maybe you’re the arsehole. ;)
Good video. Nailed a lot of game behavior.
I’m picking up on a strong bias by the articles used for citations. There’s not much wiggle room to not arrive to this conclusion like they were cherry picked. Most references are anti-nuclear in some way or another.
We closed down a 2.2GW plant. How much would that cost in solar? My google-fu says around $2 billion and a loooooot of land.
Meh, I’ve moved on. I was addicted to digg back in the day, but they’ll have to earn viewership back from me. Not impossible, but content, moderation, and monitization are going to be hard to perfect these days.
Digg killed digg IMO. They either learned a lesson, or it’s more of the same.
I found one of these fakes on the shelves at CVS!
I’m pretty proud I got something banned after a letter.