GenAI tools ‘could not exist’ if firms are made to pay copyright | Computer Weekly
www.computerweekly.com
Artificial intelligence firm Anthropic hits out at copyright lawsuit filed by music publishing corporations, claiming the content ingested into its models falls under ‘fair use’ and that any licensing regime created to manage its use of copyrighted material in training data would be too complex and costly to work in practice

GenAI tools ‘could not exist’ if firms are made to pay copyright::undefined

  • Valen@lemmy.worldEnglish
    0·
    1 year ago

    So they’re admitting that their entire business model requires them to break the law. Sounds like they shouldn’t exist.

    • Marcbmann@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      1 year ago

      Reproduction of copyrighted material would be breaking the law. Studying it and using it as reference when creating original content is not.

        • hglman@lemmy.mlEnglish
          0·
          1 year ago

          So if a tool is involved, it’s no longer ok? So, people with glasses cannot consume copyrighted material?

        • Marcbmann@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          1 year ago

          I don’t agree. The publisher of the material does not get to dictate what it is used for. What are we protecting at the end of the day and why?

          In the case of a textbook, someone worked hard to explain certain materials in a certain way to make the material easily digestible. They produced examples to explain concepts. Reproducing and disseminating that material would be unfair to the author who worked hard to produce it.

          But the author does not have jurisdiction over the knowledge gained. They cannot tell the reader that they are forbidden from using the knowledge gained to tutor another person in calculus. That would be absurd.

          IP law protects the works of the creator. The author of a calculus textbook did not invent calculus. As such, copyright law does not apply.