It's already happening and most people like having AI more than the DMCA. Selling people on the idea that ML training is piracy to people who on average pirate content with no moral quandary will go nowhere.
People liked having Napster, but it didn't stop file sharing going from a big mainstream app to underground sites run out of Russia (or other places that ignore copyright law). Sure, you can download music/movies still, but it's not like the Napster days.
"Generative AI" is obviously copyright infringement, so owners of the copyright will win in court. Either Microsoft will have to fight a mass of legal cases, some with very deep pockets themselves, or ChatGPT will be crippled for public use.
The un-crippled models will exist if you know where to look (and have the hardware), but using them for anything apart from hobby projects would be a legal risk.
Certain specific tools may be easier to deal with from a legal standpoint, like code completion maybe. Or models for a specific purpose, like training on a law firm's case history.
It looks like Adobe has the right idea with their image generation that is trained on images which they know they have the rights to use.
Everything you said right here is entirely accurate.
> It looks like Adobe has the right idea with their image generation that is trained on images which they know they have the rights to use.
The C2PA includes Microsoft as one of the alliance members [0]. Microsoft knows that there is a way of tracing the outputs of the generated source images which is with the C2PA standard.
The fact that many AI proponents and their companies don't do this tells us that they are uncooperative and not very transparent in how they train their own AI systems despite having the experts to do so.
It's not that hard to disclose the training data. What else are they hiding?
>People liked having Napster, but it didn't stop file sharing going from a big mainstream app to underground sites run out of Russia (or other places that ignore copyright law). Sure, you can download music/movies still, but it's not like the Napster days.
Definitely, but that's not because as society we managed to put an end to piracy. It's because people are just not as interested as they were before. Piracy networks for media are alive and well, I'd even say that some are in the best shape they've ever been.
> "Generative AI" is obviously copyright infringement
You're saying this as a matter of fact when it's not clear at all. We'll see what happens with the NYT case because it touches on all the major points.
It's gonna call into question all web scraping and indexing because they're also distillations of copyrighted content in the same manner.
Exactly. People don’t like the DMCA at all. People would be happier in a world with very few IP restrictions at all.
But businesses do like it, and profits are what drive these legal decisions. This will always be the case as long as money is more important than humans in politics.
