So, like, arguing against the letter of the law, in order to defend a morally bankrupt practice in defense of profitability for large corporations, to rip off artists work.
All that it’s proof of is that you don’t understand what you’re talking about.
There are laws and standards which govern this usage, it’s called the digital millennium copyright act. While there does exist currently an argument for AI to co-op current works for what the DMCA refers to as “fair use“, whether these works would be regarded as “Derivative works” or unauthorized infringement is up for the courts to decide, not you.
This isn’t the first time technology and copyright law have crashed into each other. Google successfully defended itself against a lawsuit by arguing that transformative use allowed for the scraping of text from books to create its search engine, and for the time being, this decision remains precedential.
Please explain, in your view, the substantive differences.
That’s not the same thing as this case. Google did not use the information it scraped from a single specific work to create another specific creative work. These two things are different, and the fact that you used this precedent to defend this practice in this context, shows your lack of a grasp of the material at hand.
The AI doesn’t scrape words, in context. It scrapes morphemes and pieces them together. That’s how voice AI works. I work with voice AI as part of my job, and learning to feed it morphemes instead of full words is often important, because the AI trips up on some of its inflections.
It’s weird that you still think I’m defending this usage after this many posts. What are you missing?
I’m not missing anything. You’re very clearly missing a full comprehension of US copyright law and are stubbornly resisting any attempt at having it explained to you.
Yeah me and the Harvard Business Review are wrong about existing precdent because you have very strong feelings.
Guess the SAG strike should end then, since this is all settled!
Fun fact: by your current interpretation, since movie companies own the likeness of characters within movies, they can reuse those characters, and potentially even those actors in some instances (since they can claim they are representative of similar archetypes) forever and the movie stars don’t need to get paid. Writers are flat fucked so long as the studios train AI on prior scripts they own.
As I said, you’re conflating two different things that aren’t the same because you don’t understand the law despite it having been explained to you repeatedly. Now you’re devolving into straw men fallacies and ad hominem personal attacks because your arguments have failed over and over.
Since you’re clearly incapable of having a rational, adult discussion, I’m gonna leave it here. Have a nice day.
So, like, arguing against the letter of the law, in order to defend a morally bankrupt practice in defense of profitability for large corporations, to rip off artists work.
No, I got that
That you think I am defending the people using Fry’s voice here is just further confirmation that you don’t understand what I’m saying.
I’m saying there aren’t laws or standards that accurately restrict this usage, and that is a bad thing and why people are upset.
All that it’s proof of is that you don’t understand what you’re talking about.
There are laws and standards which govern this usage, it’s called the digital millennium copyright act. While there does exist currently an argument for AI to co-op current works for what the DMCA refers to as “fair use“, whether these works would be regarded as “Derivative works” or unauthorized infringement is up for the courts to decide, not you.
Here is current precedent:
Please explain, in your view, the substantive differences.
Quote from here: https://hbr.org/2023/04/generative-ai-has-an-intellectual-property-problem
That’s not the same thing as this case. Google did not use the information it scraped from a single specific work to create another specific creative work. These two things are different, and the fact that you used this precedent to defend this practice in this context, shows your lack of a grasp of the material at hand.
The AI doesn’t scrape words, in context. It scrapes morphemes and pieces them together. That’s how voice AI works. I work with voice AI as part of my job, and learning to feed it morphemes instead of full words is often important, because the AI trips up on some of its inflections.
It’s weird that you still think I’m defending this usage after this many posts. What are you missing?
I’m not missing anything. You’re very clearly missing a full comprehension of US copyright law and are stubbornly resisting any attempt at having it explained to you.
But thanks for explaining your bias.
Yeah me and the Harvard Business Review are wrong about existing precdent because you have very strong feelings.
Guess the SAG strike should end then, since this is all settled!
Fun fact: by your current interpretation, since movie companies own the likeness of characters within movies, they can reuse those characters, and potentially even those actors in some instances (since they can claim they are representative of similar archetypes) forever and the movie stars don’t need to get paid. Writers are flat fucked so long as the studios train AI on prior scripts they own.
This is why semantics are important in law.
As I said, you’re conflating two different things that aren’t the same because you don’t understand the law despite it having been explained to you repeatedly. Now you’re devolving into straw men fallacies and ad hominem personal attacks because your arguments have failed over and over.
Since you’re clearly incapable of having a rational, adult discussion, I’m gonna leave it here. Have a nice day.