Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Epic Meepo" data-source="post: 9652741" data-attributes="member: 57073">The proposed law also creates an obligation for any company that makes GenAI available to Californians. That company must respond any time it receives a written request from a registered copyright owner, even if the company never used any of that individual's copyrighted material. And each time the company fails to respond to one of these written requests within 30 days, the copyright holder can sue them for $1,000.That seems a bit farcical. It sounds as though someone nefarious could register a bunch of copyrights on original material no one cares about and then send a crate of 30,000 printed, written requests to every AI company doing business in California. Any company which lacks the resources to process 1,000 printed requests per day is on the hook for $1,000 for each request they fall short.I would think a better law requiring disclosure of copyrighted training data would instead require each company to maintain an accurate, searchable database of the copyrighted material they used as training data, with no mention of written requests from copyright holders. The company is already hosting a GenAI service, so asking it to also host a database is less intrusive in asking it to set up a mailroom to handle a potential deluge of written requests.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Epic Meepo, post: 9652741, member: 57073"] The proposed law also creates an obligation for any company that makes GenAI available to Californians. That company must respond any time it receives a written request from a registered copyright owner, even if the company never used any of that individual's copyrighted material. And each time the company fails to respond to one of these written requests within 30 days, the copyright holder can sue them for $1,000. That seems a bit farcical. It sounds as though someone nefarious could register a bunch of copyrights on original material no one cares about and then send a crate of 30,000 printed, written requests to every AI company doing business in California. Any company which lacks the resources to process 1,000 printed requests per day is on the hook for $1,000 for each request they fall short. I would think a better law requiring disclosure of copyrighted training data would instead require each company to maintain an accurate, searchable database of the copyrighted material they used as training data, with no mention of written requests from copyright holders. The company is already hosting a GenAI service, so asking it to also host a database is less intrusive in asking it to set up a mailroom to handle a potential deluge of written requests. [/QUOTE]

Verification