Courts (usually) understand that their power is limited by reality. If they decide that AI training is not fair use, then it will not prevent AI training, because Europe and China will continue. All it will do is cripple the US for a time before congress can pass legislation to undo it.
Difficulty of enforcement never worked as an argument in the War On Drugs. Or even in regular copyright enforcement, really. I don't see why AI megacorps should get a free pass to steal all the IP in the world simply because it's profitable.
The right people benefit from AI training being fair use, and the wrong people benefit from the war on drugs and from copyright infringement. There's no nuance or ideological reasons beyond that really. Need there be, even if we would choose differently?
It is an advisory role. But one which is supposed to be controlled by the legislative branch. But it turns out there are fewer balls in the federal government than the inhabitants of your average pet shelter post-neutering.
Courts (usually) understand that their power is limited by reality. If they decide that AI training is not fair use, then it will not prevent AI training, because Europe and China will continue. All it will do is cripple the US for a time before congress can pass legislation to undo it.
If it's now legal for AI companies to train LLMs on orphan works, can humans publish those works for other humans to read?
https://www.copyright.gov/orphan/
If red tape is being untangled, let's address longstanding issues.
Difficulty of enforcement never worked as an argument in the War On Drugs. Or even in regular copyright enforcement, really. I don't see why AI megacorps should get a free pass to steal all the IP in the world simply because it's profitable.
The right people benefit from AI training being fair use, and the wrong people benefit from the war on drugs and from copyright infringement. There's no nuance or ideological reasons beyond that really. Need there be, even if we would choose differently?
Earlier on the report pdf: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43955025
And ... the head of the Copyright Office just got fired as a result of the report. Trump probably got a call from Elon about it.
https://www.theverge.com/news/664768/trump-fires-us-copyrigh...
Lol that'll hold up in court.
"Your honor it is not fair use, we fired the guy who said it was"
> “unprecedented power grab with no legal basis,”
Ah, must be Monday in the US.
It is an advisory role. But one which is supposed to be controlled by the legislative branch. But it turns out there are fewer balls in the federal government than the inhabitants of your average pet shelter post-neutering.