The new copyright infringement lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI comes a week after The New York Times filed a similar complaint in New York.

Microsoft, OpenAI sued for copyright infringement by nonfiction book authors in class action claim::The new copyright infringement lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI comes a week after The New York Times filed a similar complaint in New York.

  • Womble@lemmy.worldEnglish
    52·
    10 months ago

    And your argument boils down to “Hitler was a vegetarian, all vegetarians are Fascists”. IP laws are a huge stifle on human creativity designed to allow corporate entities to capture, control and milk innate human culture for profit. The fact that some times some corporate interests end up opposing them when it suits them does not change that.

      • Womble@lemmy.worldEnglish
        61·
        10 months ago

        I already have:

        IP laws are a huge stifle on human creativity designed to allow corporate entities to capture, control and milk innate human culture for profit

        I thought that was a prima facie reason for why they are bad, And no I do not believe all copyright law is bad with no nuance, as you would have seen if you stalked deeper into my profile rather than just picking one that you thought you could have fun with.

          • Womble@lemmy.worldEnglish
            5·
            10 months ago

            There are plenty from people who actually study this stuff.

            I don’t have a significant opinion on the Disney case, though I will note that it stems from the fact that corporations are able to buy and sell rights to works as pieces of capital (in this case Disney buying it from Lucasfilm).

              • Grimy@lemmy.worldEnglish
                2·
                10 months ago

                Stifling a writing tool because GRRM wants a payday, on the basis that it can spit out small parts of his work if you specifically ask it too, is the opposite of advancing the art.

                …yet allowing individuals to build upon existing works. Its literally the rest of the statement you put in bold, stop trying not to see on purpose.

                  • Grimy@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    2·
                    10 months ago

                    I’m clearly talking about the technology when I say tool (large language models) and not the company itself.

                    If we can’t freely use copyrighted material to train, it completely and unequivocally kills any kind of open source or even small to medium model. Only a handful of companies would have enough data or funds to build LLMs. And since AI will be able to do virtually all desk jobs in the near future, it would guarantee Microsoft and Google owning the economy.

                    So no, I’m not taking the sides of the corporation. The corporations want more barriers and more laws, it kills competition and broadens their moat.

                    I don’t think GRRM is evil, just a greedy asshole that’s willingly playing into their hand. I also don’t think loss of potential profit because the domain has been made even more competitive equals stealing. Nothing was stolen, the barrier for entry has been lowered.

                    This isn’t helping anyone except big name author, the owners of publishing houses and Microsoft. The small time authors and artist arent getting a dime. Why should literally the rest of us get screwed so a couple of fat cats can have an other payday? How is this advancing the arts?