zlacker

>>rntn+(OP)
You've got to love the idea that copyright doesn't apply to input code (from others), but does to their output code.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24117932-apple

>>anothe+K9
Yeah I would love it if these companies simply took a principled stance against IP restrictions, but alas. Like they are literally running directly in to the main problem these restrictions create and then thinking “we need a way to say those don’t apply to us while making sure they still apply to everyone else”.

>>Taylor+0b
Here’s a principled stance: you don’t have the right to a sound, arrangement of pixels, or ideas. IP for nobody. If you disagree, then it should be “IP for everyone” and not “whether or not I support IP depends on who benefits from it”. An answer that differs from piracy to AI training is not a principled answer.

>>alphan+rc
Currently it looks like ai generated content, as well as model weights can't be copyrighted. Either way, free reign for everyone would be great. But I'm afraid big rights holders will try and lobby against this.

>>artnin+Je
Yeah. I think one can fairly clearly make a strong argument against these restrictions, but the organizations that would directly lose in the short term include basically most of the wealthiest companies in the world, so the lobbying effort would be enormous. The whole reason these companies are so wealthy is that IP restrictions very effectively concentrate wealth. This is to the detriment of everyone else, but they will fight hard to keep things this way.