This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
If an industry can't survive without resorting to copyright theft then maybe it's not a viable business.
Imagine the business that could exist if only they didn't have to pay copyright holders. What makes the AI industry any different or more special?
If asking for permission is going to kill an industry, then that industry should be killed.
Then it should die.
This is like saying "if we had to ask for consent, the human race would die." Fucking creepy, rapist vibes.
No, it's not like saying that.
Please stop trying to use rape as a way to get an emotional response for something unrelated.
Rules for thee, not for me.
I thought copyright and patent laws were supposed to protect the little guy? Looks like as soon as they protect the little guy from big business, they stop mattering.
It's almost like, they weren't there to protect the little guy which is why big businesses never fought back against them.
I guess the useful idiots were wrong, again. Color me not-surprised.
Cool, so I'll get started on building an automated business that sells cheap access to all the music, movies and shows on the streaming services.
Getting consent for each title would basically kill my business and would be implausible, so I'll just assume it's ok.
If a business cannot survive without breaking the law, then it is not a business but a criminal organisation.
Contrary to popular belief among useful idiots, copyright and patent laws are not there to protect the working class.
If copyright and patent laws actually protected workers, why have we not seen rulers fight back against them until now?
This should be eye-opening to most of you, but that would involve admitting you were wrong.
Most people can't do that.
Honestly not a bad thing, I mean you're not going to OpenSource your AI so this is a good alternative
Great, let's do that.
I have a proposition. Raid them with police and search their computers for stolen data like you would do with your citizens.
I'm ok with "ai" dying
oh noes
Look, these goddamn assholes have got in their head that they have a right to profit.
NOBODY HAS A RIGHT TO PROFIT.
You have a right to try to create a profit and there are rules to that. You're gonna lose your billions in investment if you can't plaigerize content?....fuck you, your loss, and you shoulda fucking known better when the idea was presented to you.
Assholes
So I can steal all their shit too, right? It would "Implausible" for me to do so.
Kill the AI industry? Sweet. As an artist I do not consent.
Good.
If your industry can't exist without theft then your industry doesn't deserve to exist, pretty simple.
If being declined concent is going to kill your industry then maybe your industry deserved to die.
Fucking rapist mentaility right there.
My thought exactly. If consent isn't needed, what other actions do they deem justified without consent?
This is not a IP-issue, this is about human rights.
Is this going in for a vote? Where do I vote?
If abiding to the law destroys your business then you are a criminal. Simple as.
Same thing for most of billionaires' income sources.
"Respecting [insert human right] would kill [insert industry]."
correction: will kill people's attempts to make billions out of other people's art. Otherwise inquisitive people will continue to do non-profit research this way or another.
Actually here is a question to you: Would you be ok if the law stated you don't need permission if it is non-profit and open source? Yea I thought so bitch.
And not asking for it will kill whatever remains of the creative industries.
What do you want, a few years of ai slop followed by the more or less rapid decline of the internet (as it is overwhelmed with model collapse creative works and untrustable content) that will afford the likes of Clegg (in his role of 'meta' executive) a huge payout, or creative people having any hope of a sustained ability to make a living?
I know what I would prefer and I also know what is most likely going to happen. This is the result of decades of neo-liberal fossil-fuel-powered capitalism.
Oh, so it'd be ok to get movies, pictures, books, etc. without asking the right owners for us too? GREAT.
So… what’s the down side to this bill?
If you're giving me the choice of killing the AI industry or artists it doesn't seem like a hard decision. Am I missing something?
Good.
Good, then it should die
If I ran the zoo, then any AI that trained on intellectual property as if it were public domain would automatically become public domain itself.
if something so simple can kill an entire industry, that industry should not exist.
So they want to be able to benifit from free art while the rest of us have to pay to access it? Seems fair. /s
He admit it!
The AI industry not asking artists for permission will kill the art industry.
Let's hope it does.
The audacity... If our technology isn't allowed to break the law, it will fail. Therefore we should change the law.
Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? No, says the man on Wall Street; it belongs to the shareholders.
Can't they just write an 'AI' to ask an artist for permission then? I'll bet they can. It's just that most artists will say no unless they get paid. So, their business model, based on theft, is not sustainable. Got it.
