Disney sues Midjourney

[Ryujin]

Not sure what that has to do with anything. The whole premise is that using those copyrighted works to make an ai will be counted as fair use. In a discussion with that assumption then theres a notable difference between xerox that doesn’t have such fair use claim and an ai that does.

The point is that a Xerox doesn't need to make that claim. Period. The AI does and I fully expect that to be challenged, often, until the highest courts rule on it.

 

[MoonSong]

Seems simple enough. If Collecting the material and using it to create an AI is deemed fair use then that places no further obligation on them to enforce how others use the ai. This is the ai is a tool philosophy.

So far we only have one ruling (that training is transformative). We still have many pending cases and even the case where that ruling comes from is still open -for piracy-. And we don't know if that ruling will stand on appeal or if it will turn into precedent.

 

[Bohandas]

Why? Xerox isn’t liable if a user reproduces a copyrighted image without knowledge.

Exactly

 

[Bohandas]

This seems unnecessarily vindictive.

I see it as iconoclastic. Everyone's always bending over backwards for businesses and those who don't get bent over forcibly. I'd like to turn the tables for once.

And why should I care about businesses? They don't care about me. or about anyone. And they're disposable and replacable. If one business can make a productnor provide a service there's no sane reason why another business shouldn't be able to do the same.

And speaking of big business, do you artists really think that Disney and Universal suing midjourney means that they don't intend to replace you with AI. They just want to make sure that the law unfairly favors companies that already own enough content to train an AI with content that they already own.

 

[Scribe]

And why should I care about businesses?

I'm pretty sure its not the business in that case, but the employees who depend upon that business for a cheque.

Because thats how the modern world works.

 

[FrogReaver]

So far we only have one ruling (that training is transformative). We still have many pending cases and even the case where that ruling comes from is still open -for piracy-. And we don't know if that ruling will stand on appeal or if it will turn into precedent.

I agree. Most anything is still possible. I’m just saying it seems this possibility or something similar is being discounted far too quickly.

 

[Bohandas]

I'm pretty sure its not the business in that case, but the employees who depend upon that business for a cheque.

Because thats how the modern world works.

The same thing I said about businesses being replacable goes for the workers too. Even moreso for the workers. The customer needs a specific product or service, but the workers don't need a specific job.

Because humans have shown that, without regulation, too many of us are jerks enough to use tech in ways that do significant harm.

Really. In my experience it's been mostly because of fearmongering and moral panics. Maybe with a little bit of regulatory capture, pandering to special interests, and domestic spying thrown in for good measure. Like how they keep trying to pass web censorship and domestic spying laws like SOPA, PIPA, FOSTA-SESTA, EARN-IT, and CISPA. Usually either because of "the children" or "the economy" or "terrorists" or some other fearmongering excuse.

 

[Scribe]

The same thing I said about businesses being replacable goes for the workers too. Even moreso for the workers. The customer needs a specific product or service, but the workers don't need a specific job.

So in your world, there are.

1. An inexhaustible set of producers.
2. Using an inexhaustible set of materials.
3. To provide you with an inexhaustible set of products.
4. That nobody is paid for, or paying for.

Essentially, you are personally catered to, for everything you want, at whatever cost ($, material, time, or ecological) as long as you dont have to pay a dime, since you also dont want to work for pay and therefore have no money to pay for things anyway.

Ya?

 

[Umbran]

Really. In my experience it's been mostly because of fearmongering and moral panics.

I will not engage in the politics - and I suggest you don't either, as we have rules about that around here.

But, if we step away from the internet for a moment, and look at the broader historical context, it becomes quite clear that the bulk of our regulations come as reactions to events, rather than moral panics. We have regulations on food production content and cleanliness, because without it people get sick. We have regulations on pollution output, because without it toxic and harmful things get dumped into our air, land, and water supply. We have workplace safety regulations, because without them, workers get injured, and so on.

And why should I care about businesses? They don't care about me. or about anyone.

And that is why we need regulation. Thank you for giving me the basis of the point.

 

[trappedslider]

Fair use till you try to sell it, right? Or is Disney just going after a whale instead of playing whack-a-mole with the various artist on who knows how many websites?