If an AI has been trained on copyrighted material and can be shown to be capable of reproducing something close enough to said material, would that be infringement already or not? If you use a paid service like Midjourney to generate copyrighted content, the company is essentially selling you access to copyrighted content they lack the rights to.
I wasn’t aware that it was just YT’s system that had messed up and not the legal system. Crazy that one company has that much power.
If industrial secrecy is a problem, make that illegal too. We have a right to know where our products come from, anyway. If pharmaceuticals need to benefit in order to do research, instead of patents outlawing reproduction of their products entirely, just make other companies give the original researcher a cut of the profit while the patent lasts. A 10-20% royalty should be more than enough to incentivise research while still preventing price-fixing and monopolies.
No idea if my comment went through the first time, so trying again: “But that rarity is entirely manufactured.”
But that rarity is entirely manufactured.
Fair enough. When my history was off, the recommendations were bad. I just made my bookmark link directly to the Subscriptions page.
Look at this.
Heart Afire is a song by Defqwop featuring Strix released on May 21, 2016, and removed from the the NCS YouTube channel on March 28, 2019 due to a copyright strike by Lemaitre, as this song sounded too similar to Lemaitre’s song Closer.
Having heard both songs, they really aren’t all that similar.
Pharmaceutical patents are insanely harmful to the average consumer, at least in the US. Only the rich and powerful or those willing to go deeply into debt are able to benefit from all of that extra research.
If I understand the rules correctly, the problem is that voting with your feet doesn’t work because trolls can use no-downvote instances to do some major trolling.
Except that programmers get sued for taking their expertise to competitors and musical artists get sued for using similar melodies. Give everyone the freedom you want to give AI or don’t give it to anyone, but carving out an exception for AI is just plainly wrong.
It’s true that restricting what AI can train on inhibits societal progress, but it’s consistent with current copyright laws because an AI is not a human and can’t be treated as anything more than an algorithm. What we’re learning here is that AI is bringing to light a problem in intellectual property law that’s plagued us for a long time: intellectual property being overly protected is harmful to society as a whole. I wouldn’t be opposed to AI training on data on the internet if people got the same treatment: let people reuse each other’s melodies, don’t protect likenesses so strictly, and for the love of humanity, no more pharmaceutical patents!
It seems odd to me that we would federate with instances lacking such basic functionality. Not allowing their users to downvote is one thing, but if they don’t recognize downvotes from other instances, that sort of ruins the whole upvote/downvote dynamic for everyone.
I’m not sure why people think that turning their history off protects their privacy. What’s to stop Google from just not showing you your history if you try to turn it off? I’m sure they still collect all of that data.
I hate that so much. Makes you go to their profile, which is a lot of clicks to get to their videos.
Crazy how google still does that, but youtube doesn’t. My guess would be that laymen were copy-pasting titles with hyphens in them and then getting confused when what they were looking for wouldn’t show up, which honestly makes sense. That could be solved by just having the little tricks visible somewhere near the search so that people can figure it out.
Oh, I assume you’re not a native English speaker. Altima starts by observing that the lemmy world admins seem to be having a difficult time, then goes on to ask who is attacking their servers and why. I hope that’s helpful!
That’s a very good guess, thanks.
All I did was ask for a source :(
Most people don’t even understand it. Those that do, you’re right, are fighting too many battles at once.
I think we’ll be good if everyone splits up relatively evenly between the top 10-20 instances.
To be clear, my position is that copyright law should be loosened, not tightened. I know that it’s unreasonable and infeasible to limit AI like that, both for practical and competitive reasons.
When I said that it could be shown to generate copyrighted content, I didn’t mean it had a chance, I meant showing actual examples of it doing so. I also think that it should be allowed to do that, but so should everyone else. In my opinion, derivative works should almost always be allowed unless they can be proven to cause significant harm to the original creator.