I don't think people would care as much about AI reusing code or images or text so directly if people were allowed to do so too. The big problem I think comes in when AI is allowed to do things that humans can't. Right now if I publish a book that is 70% somebody else's book but slightly rehashed with certain key phrases and sentences or more as perfect copies, I would get sued and I would lose. Right now though if an AI does it not only is it unlikely to get litigated at all, but even if it does most of the time it will come down to "whoops AI did it, but neither the publisher nor the AI developer is individually responsible enough to recover any significant loses from."
Programming productivity has been crippled for decades by the inability to reuse code due to copyright restrictions.
Because of this, the same problems have been solved again and again for countless times, because the companies employing the programmers wanted to have their own "IP" covering the solution. As a programmer, you cannot reuse your own past programs, if they have been written when employed elsewhere, so that the past employer owns them now.
Now using AI one can circumvent all copyright laws, gaining in productivity about as much as what you could have done in the past, had you been permitted to copy and paste anything into your programs.
This would be perfectly fine if the programmers who do not use an AI agent were allowed to do the same thing, i.e. to search the training programs used by the AI and just copy and paste anything from there.
>I don't think people would care as much about AI reusing code or images or text so directly if people were allowed to do so too.
But the system is never going to get changed if something doesn't give. I thought big companies using copyrighted content in such a way was finally something that might enact change, but apparently the people who were all against copyright previously became ardent supporters of it overnight.
>the people who were all against copyright previously became ardent supporters of it overnight.
Oh, no, no. You misunderstand my friend. I might loosely be called one of those who was anti-copyright, but turn my desire to see it's draconian enforcement cranked up to 11 on corporations. I believe fundamental reform is necessary, however, if you're running a for profit enterprise, and have not in good faith with the laws of of the land, which let's be clear, AI companies absolutely haven't; there is no mercy deserved. If a grandma or teen can get saddled with life ruining punitive damages for something as innocent as filesharing, then these companies should not exist in any way shape or form in a functioning justice system as currently configured. That they do illustrates the woeful state of our State.
>If a grandma or teen can get saddled with life ruining punitive damages for something as innocent as filesharing
That's the same thing these corporations were found guilty of though. Or well, maybe not even that, since it was about downloading copyrighted material, not necessarily sharing:
I support opening up copyright massively, but it might help getting it changed if AI companies were made to follow the same restrictive rules as humans and had the same incentive to push for changes copyright legislation/law.
Right now AI companies and investors have no reason to lend support behind opening up ip law because it doesn't help them while it bolsters non-AI competition.
Why would AI companies support change now? They've already been fined. Now it's too late, because now it's in their best interests to be against it. The time for change was before, but then everyone became a staunch copyright defender.
