Re: OT: The AIs have it...

On 2/27/2025 12:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Feb 27, 2025 at 8:50:35 AM PST, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

On 2/26/2025 9:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

  On Feb 26, 2025 at 4:40:52 PM PST, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
  wrote:
 

  On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 00:34:00 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
  wrote:
>

  On Feb 26, 2025 at 3:06:45 PM PST, "Alan Smithee" <alms@last.inc> wrote:
>

    1,000 artists release a silent album to protest AI taking their works...
>
>
>
https://www.techspot.com/news/106909-over-1000-musicians-release-silent-album-protest-ai.html

>
  I've never understood the claim that training AI systems on books, music,
  etc.
  is a copyright violation in the first place.
>
  The AI isn't making an unauthorized copy of the work. It's reading (or
  listening to ) the work and learning from it. This isn't any different
than a
  human being reading a book and learning from it.
>
  Some have said, well, the AI makes a copy of the work in its brain while
it's
  learning but the same can be said of a human. Why is one a (supposed)
  copyright violation but the other is not?
>

>
  The AI isn't paying for the work and the works in question aren't free
  for anyone to use.

    I don't pay for the books in my local library? Am I committing a copyright
  violation by reading them?

>
You are if you read them to someone else.

 Nope. Reading them aloud to someone in person is not a public performance any
more than inviting your friend over to watch a movie with you is a public
performance.

There's a continuum of circumstances there.  So, I can read a book to my friend, but perhaps not to my book club ...not to mention when my book club tapes my reading for absent members.