this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
258 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

68567 readers
4662 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (18 children)

tragic. no one should need to pay to read the law

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 month ago (9 children)

That's literally not what the ruling is about. It was about an AI bro company using proprietary, copyrighted materials to train its AI, which they obtained by questionable means, after being denied license to do so by the IP owners. Further, after training the AI with unlicensed materials, they launched a competing product.

Whether you support IP or not, the AI company is clearly in the wrong here.

It's a pretty definitive example of many AI companies being little more than leeches, stealing others' work and repackaging it as their own. All with zero long-term consideration of "what do we do when there's noone left to leech off of because we undermined the ability of those make the source data to make a living, while unnecessarily driving increased emissions and consumption of potable water for something that provides little actual value do humanity as a whole?"

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Whether you support IP or not, the AI company is clearly in the wrong here.

they're both wrong to restrict access. if legal analysis is necessary to understand the law, then restricting access to that analysis, or it's free dissemination, is also wrong.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

I am in agreement with you here, at least ideologically. I think that IP law needs a massive overhaul because data "wants" to be free. The major problem is with the context of the hyper-commercialized landscape that we currently live in.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)