• Vent@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    They didn’t pay the writers though, that’s the whole point

    • lily33@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      True - but I don’t think the goal here is to establish that AI companies must purchase 1 copy of each book they use. Rather, the point seems to be that they should need separate, special permission for AI training.

      • PupBiru@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        100% this! there are separate licenses for personal listening, public performance, use in another work (movie and TV)… there will likely be a license added for AI training to which some authors will opt into, some will opt out of… it’ll likely start very expensive, nobody will pay, someone will offer up
        old works that aren’t selling well for bargain basement prices, make a killing, then others will see the success and slowly prices will follow and eventually prices will sit at a happy medium where AI companies can tolerate and copyright holders aren’t feeling screwed… well, i mean, they’ll be being screwed but their publishers will be making bank

        that’s my totally out of thin air prediction anyway

      • BURN@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I believe this is where it’ll inevitably go. However I’m not sure it’ll be just AI, rather hopefully more protections around individual creative work and how that can be used by corporations for internal or external data collection.

        This really does depend on privacy laws as well and probably data collection, retention and usage too.