• Randomgal@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 hours ago

    I hope you realize they aren’t fighting for the rights of artists. They are fighting for their exclusive right to exploit artists.

      • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Abolish the abomination known as intellectual property
        I hope both sides straight up die as a result of this
        The end of the intellectual “property” regime
        making infinite things artificially scarce
        cannot possibly come soon enough
        What was “intellectual property” should instead be paid up front by the people who want it
        the result should be entirely unburdened of any sort of property, royalty, strings and DRM
        ready to be infinitely broadcast and available to all
        We’re still going to want stuff and we’re going to pay for it
        We’re not going to be vampirized by monstrous mice of the past
        for 80 years after the author’s death
        now I’m off to piss, in Walt Disney’s cryotank

    • kibiz0r@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Absolutely. There’s not a good guy on either side here.

      If AI vendors win, it’s basically this:

    • BadlyDrawnRhino @aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      16 hours ago

      You’re not wrong, but if they win against AI, all artists will benefit because of the precedent that it would set.

      What I think will actually happen if this is looking to not go in the tech bros’ favour is that they’ll settle and make a potential deal with large copyright holders for ongoing usage, and that would screw individual artists.

      • Womble@piefed.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        44 minutes ago

        It wont do anything of the sort. Even if you accept the premise that somehow artists are being exploited from learning from their previous works, all that will happen is the AI companies will shift out of America to a juristiction that doesnt value extracting rents from IP above all else.

      • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        all artists will benefit because of the precedent that it would set.

        No, these protections exist to maintain profits of large corporations. Copyright, patents, and intellectual rights were created under the false pretense that it “protects the little person”, but these are lies told by the rich and powerful to keep themselves rich and powerful. Time and time again, we have seen how broken the patent system is, how it is impossible to not step on musical copyright, how Disney has extended copyrights to forever, and how the megacorporations have way more money than everybody else to defend those copyrights and patents. These people are not your friend, and their legal protections are not for you.

      • Randomgal@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        For artists able to afford a lawsuit against a multimillion company.

        No. It doesn’t benefit artists.

        • BadlyDrawnRhino @aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          12 hours ago

          But the large corporations are handling that side of things already. If the lawsuit goes in the favour of copyright holders, AI companies would in theory have to do something to avoid using copyrighted material, or pay for the usage. Of course, there’s every chance that they may end up avoiding using copyrighted material from anyone big enough to fight back, and just profit off of the works of artists without the resources to stop them doing so.

  • TehPers@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    20 hours ago

    As Anthropic argued, it now “faces hundreds of billions of dollars in potential damages liability at trial in four months”

    Well sure when you potentially violate almost every active copyright for multiple kinds of media, you end up potentially being liable for some wild damages. That’s the whole point.

    Whether or not the work was sufficiently transformative will be an interesting question of course, but they should have known up front that this legal battle was a risk that their business could need to face.

  • Womble@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 hours ago

    For all those cheering on the copyright mafia going after Anthropic, consider that some of the groups supporting anthropic against this massive overreach of “we get to decide how you use our works” include:

    • Authors Alliance
    • the Electronic Frontier Foundation
    • American Library Association
    • Association of Research Libraries
    • Public Knowledge

    Maybe this is not such a great thing?

    • kibiz0r@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Indeed. I want AI companies to get regulated into smithereens, but not through expansion of copyright law. There would be too much collateral damage, and it wouldn’t even work.

      • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        49 minutes ago

        Yet so far it seems the only real solution at hand. Under the Cheeto, AI companies basically have free reign to race for who gets to make the first Skynet, nobody cares anymore as long as it’s more more more, and the goal justifies the means. Sacrifice the environment, humanity, everything, as long as shareholders get a lot of money.

        The copyright lobby, on the other hand, has been doing this shit since forever, I doubt things can get much worse on their side

  • artyom@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Never going to happen with the current administration. Just a big Dog and Pony show.

    • artifex@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      22 hours ago

      It has to set some precedent though. Either there are valid reasons to violate copyright are there aren’t.

        • artifex@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          21 hours ago

          Ok reading a little more the class has been certified but it hasn’t gone to trial, so there’s still a possibility of a closed-door settlement of some sort, though given the number of parties involved that seems unlikely. Maybe I’m just being optimistic. But if it goes to trial and makes it to judgement there will either have to be cases where using copyrighted materials to train AI (which seriously how is that not for generating derivative works) is found to be ok, or copyright will be held sacrosanct and the whole gen AI industry will have to pay… something. Punitive damages would make the industry cease to exist overnight, and I’d bet most publishers would prefer a check instead.