339
this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2025
339 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
61774 readers
5946 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But did they keep a good ratio though?
In copyright protection terms the ratio shouldn't matter. They should pay for all the lost profits from pirating everything they've downloaded. Every time someone pirated it should be counted. And every time someone uses the AI trained on the data.
They can become the corporate Jesus of the interwebs, having paid for our sins.
Technically, copyright infringement is committed by the entity making and sending the copy, not the entity receiving it. Leeching could indeed remove liability.
I'm not sure if the courts have cared about that nuance when persecuting the 'small fish,' but I bet they would in this 'big fish' case.
If the receiving entity then ingests all that copyrighted material into its AI, and the AI sends it piece at a time to other receiving entities, that should be the AI infringing on everything it is copying to make its answers.
Yes, yes it should. But that's a different act than the one being discussed here.
I agree. Still doesn't hurt to bring it up on appropriate tangents.