Comment by flir
9 months ago
You're taking an "everything not permitted is forbidden" approach, which contradicts the common law principle of residual freedom.
This would automatically outlaw any new use of information (eg music sampling) by default.
If all novel uses were banned from the outset, cultural progress would suffer immeasurably.
I don't think cultural progress will suffer from copyright holders preventing AI from using their content.
What I think will suffer more is the bank accounts of AI corporations.
So to be clear, you're arguing this one specific use (machine learning) should be knocked on the head? And not all novel uses?
Because "content owners to say what can and cannot be done with their data" is quite broad.
No, that's not what I said.
If we want to use data owned by others and make money with it, we can do two things:
(1) just grab the data
(2) ask the content owners
I think what is fair is closer to (2) than to (1). Especially since the data was originally intended for human consumption. What you call "training" is what another person might call "mechanized processing", and would not fall within fair use of the data.
1 reply →