That arguments not going to be of any use then.

They don’t do that.

Hit the nail on the head.

So you’re talking morally? Sorry but that’s not even worth discussing here.

But they didn’t use it for any of those purposes. Training an AI model isn’t doing any of that. Which do you think they did specifically?

Humans can learn from any copyrighted material they want to. Copyright doesn’t, and can’t, prevent that.

And I don’t care :)

Looks like the article was updated to change from “trying to” to “considering” lol. Seems even their editors agree with me.

Which ones did they know were legal but grabbed them anyway?

Glad we agree that little ol’ Grams is capable of assault.

Because the law isn’t always right

Well the law is what is legal. If people break the law, they should be charged. This is hardly a new concept. You don’t think lawbreakers should be charged?

AI doesn’t do that though.

That’s not what AI is doing though. A better analogy using your book example would be learning a book by heart, then going and writing a new book in that same style.

Is that illegal? No.

Oh I’m flattered that you know who I am. I have no idea who you are and don’t intend to even attempt to remember. Rent free baby!

What’s not illegal? Did you even read my post? I said IF THEY BROKE THE LAW ARREST THEM AND CHARGE THEM. What on earth is there to get your knickers in a bunch about in that statement?

Seems you can’t argue the point, but the person instead.

Randomly generated. Go to Google and type randomly generated username and have at it.

Keep your conspiracy theories plausible. You’re failing.

The underlying technology I am talking about.

a) No one is suggesting AI be regarded as equal to a person under law though?

b) if the music is being streamed then it’s up to the streaming company to pay the artists royalties. I have Spotify and I don’t pay the artists - Spotify does.

If the argument is “the people feeding data into the AI illegally acquired the content” then sure, argue that and prosecute them for piracy or whatever. That’s not the argument that is being made though.

By the politicians? I’d love to see that so hopefully if it exists it comes out haha

My point however was that the “rabid congresswoman” absolutely could have assaulted the police.

They do, but the point still stands. No one “owns” what these AIs are learning. That’s what they’re doing - learning, and they’re learning from copyrighted material the same way people learn from copyrighted material. The copyright holders - mainly artists - are just super upset about it because it’s showing that what they provide can be easily learned and emulated by computers.

They’re the horse and carriage sellers when cars were invented.

It’s the same reason why I find the lefts calls for censorship, prosecution of political opponents, stuffing the courts, banning of political parties, etc to be so incredibly stupid and naive.

They don’t understand that while those things are “great” when it’s their beloved do-no-wrong party in power - they won’t be in power forever! When they aren’t in power, those very same laws will be used against them but 10x worse due to the effects of those laws being used against the now-in-power party.

Yeah I don’t care about “karma” or any scores, but I do like to use it as a way to gauge the “temperature” of the conversation. As soon as the dogpiling starts happening, and benign comments that are in no way disagreeable - or even the same as other comments that are highly upvoted - are mass downvoted, you know that you’re in a circle jerk echo chamber.

I’ll happily continue voicing my opinion and defending my stance, but I know it’s a losing battle because the majority aren’t here to actually learn or discuss or change their minds - they’re here to circle jerk and tell each other how bad the thing they hate is and shame those who don’t hate it as much as they do.