zlacker

>>rntn+(OP)
Copyright holders make all kinds of arguments for why they should be get money for incidental exposure to their work. This is all about greed and jealousy. If someone uses AI to make infringing content, existing laws already cover that. The fact that an ML model could be used to generate infringing content, and has exposure to or "knowledge" of some copyrighted material is immaterial. People just see someone else making money and want to try and get a piece of it.

>>andy99+gf
Yes, most of this is whining from the "copyright forever" crowd. If you get out something vaguely similar to something old, they complain. What they're really worried about is becoming obsolete, not being copied.

The case against "tribute bands" is much stronger than the case against large language models built with some copyrighted content. Those are a blatant attempt to capitalize on the specific works of specific named people.

>>Animat+6k
What people are worried about is the age old thieves stealing property and monetising it - which is what a lot of ai companies do. Pay up or create your own content and its fair game.

>>gumbal+IK
It's not theft, etc. Boring tangent to try to introduce