Comment by CamperBob2
1 day ago
"Copyright violation?" That remains to be seen, doesn't it? Which court do you sit on, and how many trillions of dollars in future value do you feel comfortable tossing away?
The copyright industry has done all it can for us, even in the most charitable interpretation. They literally, by constitutional mandate, can't be allowed to stand in the way of progress. We're not talking Napster 2.0 here.
You’re going to give me shit for calling out a clear copyright violation because I’m not a judge, and yet you feel comfortable saying that it’s unconstitutional(?!) to stand in their way? What court do you sit on?
A literal, plain-language reading of the Constitution is sufficient. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: [The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Copyright doesn't promote the progress of science. Rather the opposite, as it allows journals that contribute nothing to progress to charge the rest of us to access research our taxes paid for.
As for "arts," useful and otherwise, those are secured these days via unbreakable permanent DRM, which overtly violates the constitutional basis of copyright law as a time-limited bargain with the public domain. You should be at least as outraged about that as you are about AI, but evidently you're not.
Meanwhile, you'd have to have rocks in your head to argue that AI doesn't constitute scientific progress at a bare minimum.