I never suggested or implied that copyright laws need to be removed.
It does appear that OpenAI’s position is “copyright laws are dumb and need to be changed” which, during the Aaron Schwartz story, was the position of the community.
Now, since the entity involved is an AI company, we’re seeing people who’re on the side of using copyright laws to punish infringers because they don’t like AI.
Either copyright laws need to be changed or they don’t need to be changed. Someone’s position on the topic shouldn’t change based on who is being negatively effected by said laws.
People are being cynical about the laws applying equally to Big Corps vs regular people.
If we make a special case for abolishing copyright if it means you’re training an AI model, does that mean that now everyone can download copyrighted material if they do some form of locally hosted training?
The answer will probably end up being: one rule for the corporations and another for individuals.
I never suggested or implied that copyright laws need to be removed.
It does appear that OpenAI’s position is “copyright laws are dumb and need to be changed” which, during the Aaron Schwartz story, was the position of the community.
Now, since the entity involved is an AI company, we’re seeing people who’re on the side of using copyright laws to punish infringers because they don’t like AI.
Either copyright laws need to be changed or they don’t need to be changed. Someone’s position on the topic shouldn’t change based on who is being negatively effected by said laws.
People are being cynical about the laws applying equally to Big Corps vs regular people.
If we make a special case for abolishing copyright if it means you’re training an AI model, does that mean that now everyone can download copyrighted material if they do some form of locally hosted training?
The answer will probably end up being: one rule for the corporations and another for individuals.