Comments by "" (@grokitall) on "The Copilot Lawsuit Just Got More Interesting" video.
-
1
-
1
-
@h7hj59fh3f upon doing a little more research, the us and uk maintain your position, but many other countries don't. so putting the grant of public domain statement makes it public domain in all countries which recognise it, and including the cc0 license grants the closest equivalent in those countries which don't.
intellectual property rules are country specific, and follow a pattern in how they are introduced.
first, they don't exist, as the country has no domestic industries which need them, this allows domestic industries to form, copying the ip from other countries. the most obvious example of this is book publishing, where foreign books are copied on an industrial scale to develop a local consumer base for the ip.
second, local ip starts being produced, so rules get introduced to protect the creator and licensee from other local (and later foreign) companies from continuing to do what has been standard practice, as the local market needs enough revenue to help the local creators to be able to continue to create.
third, they want to sell and license to foreign companies, so they have to sign up to international treaties providing either mutual recognition of each others rules, or a standard set of working practices. the first is way better for too many reasons to go into right now.
fourth, at some point in this ip recognition process, 2 things happen as the country realises that ip protection needs to be time limited. the idea of public domain ip is accepted, with recognition upon what terms cause it to expire, providing massive bonuses to the public from company abuses of old ip content, and they realise that different industries and different forms of ip have different timescales for return on investment for ip, and need different expiry rules, after which it returns to the public domain. this pr9tects the companies from other companies.
5rade dress (does it look like a mcdonalds) needs instant protection, for the duration of existence of the company to prevent anyone else from pretending to be them.
drug manufacturing can take 20 years and a lot of money to get to market, with a lot of products failing before it gets here, so it needs relatively long timescales for exclusivity to recoup those expenses.
books on the other hand make most of their income in the first few years, and almost never get a second round of popularity after their initial release, so much smaller timescales should be involved..
and of course, sometimes creators create something for the public good, and want to put it straight into the public domain.
due to the american political system being particularly vulnerable to lobbying, they are still not very far along with the public protection side of this, while being very aggressive with the company protecti9n side. however these two sides need to balance for the good of everyone. some other countries are further along or better balanced than others, due to local circumstances.
this difference in speed of evolution of the rules is just the most obvious reason why mutual recognition is better than forcing standard rules, but there are many others.
1
-
the problem is not with the learning. if it was using the same input to generate rules for a symbolic ai like an expert system, then used the rules to write code that would be fine.
that is not how it works. with statistical ai, it creates plausible generated code, and as your specification gets close enough, the training set approximates towards a single sample. this results in a 1 to 1 copy.
if you think this is a spurious argument, multiple book authors are suing for exactly this case.
the problem with violation is that it applies everywhere, and the ai has no audit trail to prove it is not guilty. this leaves both the user and the ai owner with potentially huge liabilities which they cannot defend, where they could be sued anywhere.
the only significant defense for software is the obviousness defense, where near identical code implements basically the same function, but it is not collecting that data either.
in the end, the ai copyright infringement issue will not generally be solved with software, but with books, audio, and video, and then the licencing issue will be an addition on top of all that.
think of it like how microsoft got away with blatant monopoly abuse in the us, but then had to mitigate their behaviour expensively in the eu because they did not implement rules as silly as the ones in the us.
also, remember that the movie alien nearly could not be released due to the script being almost an exact copy of one of the stories in a e van vogt's voyage of the space beagle. it was only able to be released because the author liked the way the director made the film, and both sides w3re willing to talk in good faith.
1