randominternetperson

designguybrown said:

Meh. Seems emotional and sentimental. If you are placing your content on the web, you are practically posting it on the street for general view with absurd hopes of pennies trickling in on some desperate fancy rather than through proper business channels with an effective strategy of legally protecting and promoting yourself - childish. Most people who do such art that they may avoid other types of structured paid work - what do they expect when they treat their skill set as a hobby - likely not wanting to work for others on a structured gig - if that's even around much? What's even the issue here - not getting a piece of the trifling leavings of scrapers and edu-content pedlars? pedantic. Art needs to stop being a vague creation-vocation of the rando people and grow up. Successful society is based on complex businesses and legal structures requiring serious people acting seriously. Creativity is a real skill and needs focused training and  a hierarchy of knowledgeable people to propagate it through society. Sorry, but I have little symp for the dilettantes and dabblers hoping to otherwise avoid the soulless cubicle, construction site, and assembly line.

foregoneconclusion said:

mfryd said:

foregoneconclusion said:

mfryd said: I am not a lawyer, however this is my understanding of what someone can do without violating copyright law.

Yes, a person can do that without violating copyright. But AI doesn't work like the human mind. AI requires the complete works of Stephen King to be copied into a database. If it's done without permission, then it's a violation of copyright. 

One can certainly make a reasonable case that an internal copy is a violation.  One can also make a case that an internal copy is fair use.  

AI may not store text in a simple format.  A computer can parse the text, break it down into verbs, nouns, concepts, etc.  The computer might be storing a sophisticated parse tree and analysis of the original text, not the original text itself.  Perhaps this conversion is transformative enough that it isn't a violation?   Does it make a difference if the computer and undo the transformation and can recover the original text?

The courts are currently working on clarifying how to apply the existing copyright law to these new, and unforeseen usages.

Again, "fair use" for a professional product is always going to be limited to excerpts. And I think you're aware that if the AI program only used public domain writings then the output is only going to be similar to public domain writings. It isn't suddenly going to start writing like Stephen King. 

When each LLM was put into a public-facing version of Claude [Anthropics AI service], it was complemented by other software that filtered user inputs to the LLM and filtered outputs from the LLM back to the user (id. ¶¶ 75–77). As a result, Authors do not allege that any infringing copy of their works was or would ever be provided to users by the Claude service. Yes, Claude could help less capable writers create works as well-written as Authors’ and competing in the same categories. But Claude created no exact copy, nor any substantial knock-off. Nothing traceable to Authors’ works. Such allegations are simply not part of plaintiffs’ amended complaint, nor in our record.

Authors further argue that the training was intended to memorize their works’ creative elements — not just their works’ non-protectable ones (Opp. 17). But this is the same argument. Again, Anthropic’s LLMs have not reproduced to the public a given work’s creative elements, nor even one author’s identifiable expressive style (assuming arguendo that these are even copyrightable). Yes, Claude has outputted grammar, composition, and style that the underlying LLM distilled from thousands of works. But if someone were to read all the modern-day classics because of their exceptional expression, memorize them, and then emulate a blend of their best writing, would that violate the Copyright Act? Of course not.

MplsP said:

New Vietnam trade deal means Apple American consumers will pay at least five times more in tariffs.

Fixed the title.

Apple Watch:$119 for theft or loss

iPhone: $149 for theft or loss

iPad: $129 for theft or loss

https://www.apple.com/legal/applecare/fees-deductibles/

jrobards said:

Not sure  how that could be considered consumer friendly as the pre-paid multi year was better priced than the subscription model.  I  think this is kind of lousy.