Re: OT: The AIs have it...

On Feb 26, 2025 at 8:28:22 PM PST, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 02:29:55 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
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?

 
No but you are checking out each book one at a time. The AI was
trained on a large collection of books so no need to go through the
delaying tactic of checking out a book (digital or physical) from the
library.

None of which has anything to do with copyright. There's nothing in the
copyright statute that says it's only a violation if you read the books
super-quick.