Thousands of authors demand payment from AI companies for use of copyrighted works::Thousands of published authors are requesting payment from tech companies for the use of their copyrighted works in training artificial intelligence tools, marking the latest intellectual property critique to target AI development.

  • foggy@lemmy.worldEnglish
    43·
    1 year ago

    Not without some seriously invasive warrants! Ones that will never be granted for an intellectual property case.

    Intellectual property is an outdated concept. It used to exist so wealthier outfits couldn’t copy your work at scale and muscle you out of an industry you were championing.

    It simply does not work the way it was intended. As technology spreads, the barrier for entry into most industries wherein intellectual property is important has been all but demolished.

    i.e. 50 years ago: your song that your band performed is great. I have a recording studio and am gonna steal it muahahaha.

    Today: “anyone have an audio interface I can borrow so my band can record, mix, master, and release this track?”

    Intellectual property ignores the fact that, idk, Issac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz both independently invented calculus at the same time on opposite ends of a disconnected globe. That is to say, intellectual property doesn’t exist.

    Ever opened a post to make a witty comment to find someone else already made the same witty comment? Yeah. It’s like that.

      • foggy@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        1 year ago

        Spoken like someone who is having trouble admitting they’re standing on the shoulders of Giants.

        I don’t expect a nuanced response from you, nor will I waste time with folks who can’t be bothered to respond in any form beyond attack, nor do I expect you to watch this

        Intellectual property died with the advent of the internet. It’s now just a way for the wealthy to remain wealthy.

                • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.comEnglish
                  2·
                  1 year ago

                  Okay, seems you need help reading. So let me take DIRECT quotes.

                  As long as you haven’t made your Twitter account private, every thought you broadcast can be seen by anyone in the world. However, any words or photos you Tweet, as long as they are original, are yours and, except in specific circumstances, can’t be used without your permission.

                  You Retain Copyright (But That’s Not the Whole Story)

                  Copyright law is pretty clear: the text of your Tweets is yours. There are some Fair Use arguments, such as newsworthiness or commentary, that would allow someone to copy and paste the text contents of your Tweet and post it elsewhere, but for the most part, they can’t. The ideas in your Tweets, however, aren’t covered by copyright. Only the exact wording. As the New York Times reports, a Hollywood movie studio can take your idea and turn it into a film starring Rihanna.

                  ”You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. What’s yours is yours — you own your Content (and your photos and videos are part of the Content).

                  So what does all this mean? Well first, Twitter acknowledges your copyright: “What’s your is yours.” They then go on to outline the terms of the license you grant them to use anything you post on Twitter.

                  I mean That’s literally paragraphs worth of content telling you that YOUR CONTENT IS COVERED BY COPYRIGHT. The whole of twitters Terms of service is you granting twitter a perpetual license to YOUR CONTENT.

                  But right… Nothing copyrighted about comment content… and yet they mention it over and over that it is covered? Are you okay?

                  There is nothing copywritten about this comment.

                  Yes your comment is covered under copyright. Including the ones you just made.

                  Anyone can copy and paste this without attributing me and there is no recourse for me. If someone copy and pastes a published book, they can sue.

                  Covered under copyright != how easy it would be to claim damages.

                  If someone copy and pastes a published book, they can sue. How can they possibly be the same thing…?

                  It literally is.

                  https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/16680/are-comments-posted-on-websites-owned-by-the-website-or-the-commenter

                  We can even look at this from the opposite direction. Here’s a full list of works that cannot be Copyright.

                  https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/works-not-covered-copyright

                  Notice that “comments on the internet” isn’t one of them.