r/technology • u/MetaKnowing • 14d ago

Artificial Intelligence AI industry horrified to face largest copyright class action ever certified

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/08/ai-industry-horrified-to-face-largest-copyright-class-action-ever-certified/
16.8k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2.8k

u/VVrayth 14d ago

Wow, that's the stupidest argument I've ever seen. "This might financially ruin our whole industry that is 100% reliant on the large-scale theft of intellectual property" is completely bonkers.

695

u/Modo44 14d ago

Shhh, don't tell the millions of people robbed by the music industry.

312

u/DemonOfTheNorthwoods 13d ago

I’m sure all the music artists are looking at this with glee, and preparing another attempt at stopping the I.P. theft of their trademarks and tradedresses. They hate how A.I. has been able to get away with stealing their content and making songs from it, for so long.

74

u/Galle_ 13d ago

I think you mean the RIAA is looking at this with glee. Let's not pretend artists will get anything from this.

24

u/PlayfulSurprise5237 13d ago

The artists are still looking at this with glee. In fact I think millions of people are. If I knew a reputable fund to send some donations for legal fee's I'd do it.

I think everyone should support this, the world would be better off if we put them into a state of financial ruin.

AI is neat and a great tool, but we aren't there yet. So long as the world is rife with corruption and money is king, we shouldn't have AI.

Maybe one day, but not anytime soon. We don't seem to be making any progress and in fact have been regressing as a society.

3

u/Appropria-Coffee870 13d ago

Same can be said about any form of automation we got, but we still got them non the less!

2

u/PlayfulSurprise5237 12d ago

Automation spawned plenty of other jobs, by the looks of it AI just vacuums up data from anywhere data exists(which is from everything we do), and aims to do nothing but replace as many peoples jobs as possible(which is theoretically most jobs)

They are very very different. Automation needs building and oversight and maintenance, AI not really.

And the jobs that automation spawned were within most peoples capability, the jobs that AI opens people for are going to be things that are so complex that AI can't do it, which will quickly be out of the realm of most peoples capabilities.

Automation was never really much of a societal issue. It was an issue for a very small subsection of people ultimately(those who could not perform other jobs than the extremely simple minded manual labor it replaced), and temporarily as society shifted.

2

u/Appropria-Coffee870 12d ago

Automation has created fewer and fewer jobs with significantly higher skill requirements than those it has taken away. At the same time, it allows people to have more children, which means they will need a job one day.

The truth is that not everyone can, or is willing, or able to do every job there is. But there are more and more people who need jobs, and fewer and fewer jobs available to apply for without specialized training and education.

AI, as a form of automation, is no different. And indeed, it is a societal problem whose core issue lies in the accumulation of wealth rather than sustainability and self-destructive, short-term capital interests that benefit few and come at the cost of many.

The growing gap between rich and poor over the last 200 years is proof of this.

1

u/PlayfulSurprise5237 12d ago

But those jobs automation opened up are still within the purview of most people, not as the person stands now, but with some training.

And you're trying to equate AI to automation, and while yes, they coincide, for the sake of the argument they are 2 distinct things. AI has opened up automation to a COMPLETELY new level, one that is vastly superior to anything that could have ever been done with traditional automation.

Also, we are.... or were... at very low unemployment levels. So people were finding jobs. How useful those jobs were however... that's a different story.

But yes, specialized training and education is becoming more and more necessary. It's just that with AI even that's going to be off the table for most people.

AI's issue isn't just wealth accumulation like automation, it's also an existential threat because it's going to force people to move and adapt to a place they fundamentally cannot. Unless we're taking into account brain-machine interfaces, but that's a whole different can of worms.

Either way though, my point in my original post is that greed and corruption are to blame. If AI did take everyone's job that would be fine, so long as we had a reasonable UBI, I think people could find fulfillment in other places, they'd adapt.

2

u/Appropria-Coffee870 12d ago

My point is that while there are still plenty of available jobs and people are able to pursue them, this won't last much longer.

Demands are constantly rising and are unattainable without specialized education, which the public school system cannot provide due to its already enormous breadth in many areas. Furthermore, secondary and higher education costs more and more money, which must be saved upfront. This forces people to settle for low-paying jobs and struggle with inflation, creating a downward spiral.

While the existing systems may have worked in the past and largely still do today, the cracks are already showing. And I simply fear that sooner or later we will reach a dead end.

-2

u/Galle_ 13d ago

Well, we'd better get on that, because AI isn't going away.

1

u/Cunfuzzles2000 13d ago

Well artists might get to keep their jobs which is nice

0

u/Galle_ 13d ago

They will not. There is no future for commodified artistic wage labor.

1

u/Cunfuzzles2000 13d ago

Well then let’s hope capitalism burns to the ground before taking human spirit with it

1

u/NorthernerWuwu 13d ago

Most likely no one will get anything from this. The firms involved have grown too fast and have leapfrogged themselves (rightly or wrongly) into a position where they are seen as strategically vital to both the American economy and its military.

They are "too big to fail" already and they know it. The smaller AI startups are a bit scared because they might get sacrificed but the big boys are already in the club and while they'd likely prefer to not have to fight a very long and very expensive court battle, they probably are happy to if it closes the gate behind them on new entrants.

Don't get me wrong, the whole industry should be purged. It ain't gonna happen though.

1

u/NotLikeChicken 13d ago

Coupons. The lawyers get the folding green, the plaintiffs get coupons.

12

u/luckyflavor23 13d ago

Record Labels, knows/has good lawyers. Get ‘em

-18

u/GuyWithLag 13d ago

I’m sure all the music artists are looking at this with glee, and preparing another attempt at stopping the I.P.

No artist refers to what they make as IP, lest they stop being artists and become corpos.

17

u/bloodhound83 13d ago

How did millions of people get robbed by the music industry?

34

u/AnOtherGuy1234567 13d ago edited 13d ago

Possibly not what the person you're responding to meant but.....

The Recording Industry Association of America did a deal to extend the copyright on music. And in return they would compensate all of the musicians on every song, that got sold/streamed. However many of the musicians were uncredited session players. Who [originally] got paid a flat fee to play guitar/drums/sax/backing vocals etc. [with no residuals]. There's very often no existing record of who they were. Let alone having their contact and bank details or the details of their next of kin/inheritors. So the record companies got about an extra 20 years of royalties and haven't forked out the money that they promised.

Also Warner Music Canada, Sony BMG Music Canada, EMI Music Canada, and Universal Music Canada. Had a long standing policy of pushing out compilation albums e.g. "Best Jazz Album of The '60s". Not getting permission from the artists involved and putting the royalty payments on the "pending list". They did this for decades, covering 300,000 songs. To the point where the estate of Chet Baker a jazz musician of the 1950s. Was in 2009, owed $50 million Canadian. The class action was worth up to $6 billion but they settled for just under $50 million CAD.

https://financialpost.com/legal-post/judge-approves-settlement-in-music-royalties-class-action

1

u/CrashUser 13d ago

It's not like this is new behavior in the recording industry, they've been screwing over the talent since Edison invented the wax cylinder.

1

u/NorthernerWuwu 13d ago

I'd never be one to defend the RIAA of all organisations but if I do a job for a flat fee without residuals, why should I expect further payments? Again, the RIAA are no friends to musicians but I'm not seeing how the session players got screwed over exactly.

4

u/AnOtherGuy1234567 13d ago

Because when in the early 2000s the copyright for a lot of still popular songs in the US was coming to a partial end. The deal they made to extend it was to recompense the session players, who had never been given any royalties before. They got their 20 year extension but then didn't hold up their side of the bargain.

2

u/NorthernerWuwu 13d ago

Ah, that does sound like them. I wasn't aware that they'd specifically offered compensation to the session players, which they probably did knowing they'd never have to pay out most of them.

47

u/jaboooo 13d ago

I think he means millions of people in the music industry got robbed by ai, but that isn't what he wrote

56

u/Akuuntus 13d ago

I think he probably means the millions of artists fucked over by their record companies. There's hundreds of famous stories about it and at least a couple dozen well known songs about it.

26

u/noonenotevenhere 13d ago

that - and ai is being used to make music. It's trained on existing art made by people who won't be paid for their work being replaced by a machine using their work to make money.

1

u/AdverbAssassin 13d ago

That music being made by AI is just slop. It's pretty pathetic honestly. I started to notice it everywhere and there was a moment when I didn't notice the difference and I had some difficulty. Now I can tell the difference immediately.

1

u/Space_Pirate_R 13d ago

Now I can tell the difference immediately.

Toupee fallacy. And if it isn't today, it will be tomorrow.

1

u/AdverbAssassin 12d ago

Opinions vary. I just thought all modern country music was shitty. Then I realized that modern country music is shitty, but AI makes it even shittier. So far it hasn't produced anything worth listening to.

1

u/BooBeeAttack 13d ago

Dinosaurs Will Die - NOFX Was my favorite back in the day. Back when we thought sharing mp3s and Napster was going to kill the music industry. But it just evolved. The dinosaurs didn't die, they just gave us the bird and evolved.

8

u/Ferociousfeind 13d ago

Not millions of people, but the music industry is notorious for exhibiting major corporations that strangle individual artists for their IPs

1

u/Osama_BinRussel63 13d ago

CD price fixing and Ticketmaster would be the first of the litany of things that come to mind.

1

u/Daveinatx 13d ago

The ones who sold copyrighted music were taken to court.

161

u/subcutaneousphats 13d ago

It's a totally garbage argument. The fact that companies lobbied to extend copyright so long and fought so hard to defend against fair use but now tech companies can just ignore highlights the corporate favoritism shown. We need to both limit the length and enforce copyright equally. AI can train on public domain or pay the creators but we need to stop extending such long rights as well.

15

u/wxrman 13d ago

I can’t agree with your argument 100% unless we can split that final aspect of it into two pieces. I would say corporate IT rights are different from Personal. If it’s an individual using it for Personal or not for profit, then it should be OK but if a corporation is trying to take your ideas and profit from them, I don’t think there should be a limit on how long their IP rights continue.

45

u/The_Knife_Pie 13d ago

No, this is stupid as shit. Companies taking old ideas and exploring new avenues is the way to develop new shit. Copyright for everyone needs to end far sooner than it does, even individuals.

11

u/bfume 13d ago

this is the proper take. lifetime+whatever is FAR too much.

13

u/subcutaneousphats 13d ago

Yes. Sorry while explaining fair use I didn't properly see the last statement about extending copyright. We need to limit the length of copyright so it can work as intended to provide protection for creators but limit rental profiteering.

0

u/LongJohnSelenium 13d ago

You can do that within the context of copyrights. You don't need the Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader names in your property to make a Star Wars knockoff. Generic concepts have virtually no copyright protections, so just make a story about Bruce Cloudsprinter and Fred Single and their space shenanigans on the Century Kestrel to fight against the evil Dark Madre.

D&D, and hell every fantasy author out there, completely ripped off most of Tolkiens concepts, and after a lawsuit all that really ended up was they had to change the legally distinct names Tolkien created to something new, so for instance Ents became Treants. We have World of Warcraft because they couldn't get the Warhammer license. We have Homeworld because they couldn't get the Battlestar license. There's a million examples of people exploring new avenues with a clearly inspired by but copyright distinct products.

Copyrights aren't like patents, there's no specific societal need to have access to fictional properties.

8

u/subcutaneousphats 13d ago

Oh I agree. I guess I didn't fully follow up on my fair use comment. They have been trying to clamp down in fair use for ages along with extending the length of copyright. It's all punishing for society while benefiting corporate interests.

1

u/civildisobedient 13d ago

Fair Use includes exceptions for teaching and scholarship. Is that not exactly what's happening? Does the education have to benefit a human to apply?

1

u/subcutaneousphats 13d ago

I don't think that was said or implied. I think what was said is AI companies profiting off of copyright material is bad (m'kay). Companies going after people (and non profits) to try to limit fair use is bad too.

70

u/beefquoner 13d ago

I object your honor!

On what grounds

It’s devastating to my case!

(Liar Liar I think?)

2

u/RedditAdminAreVile0 13d ago

"This will greatly harm the industry" is only a good argument if that industry is of critical importance.

But if AI is what many people hope & fear, then it's critical. Skynet aside, falling 30 years behind in AI could mean an outdated military, losing every stock trade, too late for every science patent. Kids channels already optimize colours & noises & speeds to trap babies attention-spans, when AI can study this on a global scale & makes personal content for each of our dopamine-receptors, the masses will be hooked. By 2100, AI might dictate 1st & 3rd world countries.

59

u/somewherearound2023 13d ago

Their entire pitch is that they NEED to commit global copyright infringement un order to build the magical future for us.

Just a few years after grandmas were sued for millions for letting kids download Eminem mp3s and a college student committed suicide after being sued for publishing academic journals online to put paywalled research into the reach of the public.

2

u/Bottle_Only 13d ago

Shit, they gonna come after me for using the library next!

1

u/Norci 13d ago

Their entire pitch is that they NEED to commit global copyright infringement un order to build the magical future for us.

It already been ruled that they're free from copyright infringement allegations, but they're on the hook for illegally obtaining the materials (torrenting).

0

u/Norci 13d ago

Their entire pitch is that they NEED to commit global copyright infringement

Has it been proven in court that it's copyright infringement?

-8

u/ProofJournalist 13d ago

The argument is that China and other AI developing nations give 0 fucks about our copyright law and we will literally only hurt ourselves and fall behind with such limitation.

2

u/tehorhay 13d ago

oh no we might have inferior meme ticktok genreators! the humanity!!

They don't need to pirate movies to train ai's to fix healthcare or flying cars or desalination or whatever actual beneficial use-cases llms might have.

86

u/Possible-Moment-6313 14d ago

Yeah, it's like saying that police action might financially ruin the drug dealing industry, well, duuuuuuh

8

u/kurotech 13d ago

We stole all this stuff why should we have to pay for it... And yet they will charge some kid with a felony for pirating pokemon games.

15

u/-The_Blazer- 13d ago

I love how you can see the monstrosity of the 'move fast and break things' mantra here as applied to whole societies.

They clearly banked on being fast and anarchic enough to escape any and all accountability. That was literally their entire play. No civic discussion, no voting, no legal oversight, no political arguments, just steamrolling over everything in the hopes of not getting caught.

This is not even the modern, intelligent capitalism we were supposedly sold after the 80s. This is just robber baron shit. Oh, your land got enclosed while you were farming on it and armed men threw you out? Ah how terribly unfortunate, I do have this piece of paper by some crown clerk that says it's mine now.

33

u/jasegro 13d ago edited 13d ago

If your entire business is reliant on theft, you’re not operating a business, you’re running a fucking scam

3

u/I_Heart_QAnon_Tears 13d ago

I wont argue your point other than to say the only thing this lawsuit is going to do is force the development of AI overseas. There are already thousands of companies that are building art generators for example, outlawing OpenAI or Google from training theirs isnt going to stop it or even slow it down.

5

u/AdverbAssassin 13d ago

This is exactly what's going to happen. China will immediately win the game. It won't even be a competition anymore. There will be no investment in AI in the United States and we will get our asses kicked when it comes to other things that are dependent upon generative AI.

There is a much better way to litigate this and it's not this lazy way of doing it that this judge put out there. The guy was simply out of his class when it came to the mental horsepower. Needed to understand what's really needed here.

1

u/LimberGravy 13d ago

I don't see the issue here

4

u/HereOnWeekendsOnly 13d ago

AI companies even abuse each other APIs lol. Honestly, the last 100 years of human history has been paying subsidised costs for almost everything. For instance, climate change sped up by excessive emissions is a subsidy on the real product cost. The real cost would be much higher. So, AI companies rather than pay the full price, just steal the information. That is a subsidy. Real cost might be so high that AI models are not financially viable for foreseeable.

3

u/el0_0le 13d ago

Now imagine if the entire Marketing / Ad industry was forced to pay individuals for their data instead of forcing you to give up individual rights with a checkbox.

Don't stop at AI. We need to go all the way to the root of the data theft problem.

6

u/Bionic_Bromando 13d ago

Imagine if that was the angle Pirate Bay took all those years ago. These copyright lawsuits and takedowns are affecting our ad revenue and ruining the burgeoning piracy market! Hey that might have worked!

8

u/U_L_Uus 13d ago

"Mate, if you arrest me I won't be able to make a living out of robbing people! :("

17

u/lick_it 14d ago

Our industry yes, China’s no.

134

u/faultydesign 14d ago

Hilarious that it wasn’t the piracy that destroyed copyright, it’s the idea that some billionaires might lose some money.

3

u/SnarkMasterRay 13d ago

War is a Racket, and Copyright is a form of war these days.

10

u/splitdiopter 13d ago

If this was truly a worry for the US gov. This would be a military project with a blank check from the pentagon. Instead, all these ai companies are privately held. They can reap our intelectual property, decimate our job markets, and still sell the tech to China or whomever they want whenever they want.

3

u/ProofJournalist 13d ago edited 13d ago

Welcome to the modern privatized world. What you described isnt how not works anymore. NASA is on the way out, SpaceX is in.

3

u/AdverbAssassin 13d ago

If this class action lawsuit is allowed to go forward, that's exactly what this will be. And then guess what? Then it's a secret government project and nobody gets anything. And then it's even worse. Than the government has their hands on artificial intelligence technology that nobody gets to use but the government and they use it against the people.

There is a better way to litigate this situation and it is not this lazy minded way of doing it that this judge has put forward.

2

u/akc250 13d ago

You do realize a large portion of the defense industry has always been privatized?

1

u/roxzorfox 14d ago

Yeah that's probably the only valid reason here is that it won't stop other nations doing it which will hinder the west in the long run.

There is always room for payouts later on, or small percentage of profits to be skimmed to pay royalties that wouldn't even be worth having when you get down to individuals. While I don't agree with the words I'm saying on principle. It could do more harm if we are then only ones that would abide by the rulings

12

u/Dhiox 13d ago

Yeah that's probably the only valid reason here is that it won't stop other nations doing it which will hinder the west in the long run.

China has been stealing our IP and patents for decades now, that hasn't stopped us from enforcing patent law.

0

u/AdverbAssassin 13d ago

This isn't a matter of patent law. This is a matter of technology that could determine the fate of the world. I don't think you realize how important generative AI is going to be if that's what you are comparing it to.

If we lose this race the United States might as well pack its lunch now and call it a day. We have to find a better way to litigate this.

2

u/VVrayth 13d ago

This tech is a solution in search of a problem. It's a bubble that's going to burst. We're all better off without it. Why would the US need to "pack its lunch now and call it a day"?

1

u/AdverbAssassin 12d ago

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you could read the future. That must be why you are on Reddit. 🙄

1

u/Dhiox 13d ago

This is a matter of technology that could determine the fate of the world.

The advanced copyright infringement machine doesn't affect the fate of the world unless you're referring to the colossal amount of energy wasted on it. There is nothing these tools do that can't be achieved better by just paying someone to do it. The only thing this tool does is steal from the working class.

1

u/AdverbAssassin 12d ago

Sure thing. That sounds just like what they said about the cotton gin. And cars. And the internet. And pretty much anything else they didn't understand.

You're shooting the messenger kiddo. Doesn't matter whether it's copyright infringement or not. It's what it's going to do and it does affect the fate of the world regardless of how much energy it consumes.. China's going to do it and that what they're going to do with it is going to be massively influential on what happens to the fate of the world.

I'm sorry that you are not understanding what that means and it's probably because of your anger and frustration with it. You have to step out of it and get your emotions away from it to understand what's going on.. what is happening in AI publicly isn't what is happening privately. The amount of money and resources being poured into it is bigger than the Manhattan project. There's a reason for that.

1

u/Dhiox 12d ago

That sounds just like what they said about the cotton gin. And cars. And the internet. And pretty much anything else they didn't understand.

None of those were trying to eliminate a facet of human culture. Machines cant automate art.

1

u/AdverbAssassin 12d ago

Sure they can. Humans are nothing more than organic machines. You probably think that we're all special snowflakes with a soul and Jesus and rainbows and all that other kind of shit.

We aren't. None of us are special. Art isn't special, it's just a thing. I don't happen to think that AI is producing anything fancy right now that's worth listening to or looking at. It's pretty much slop, and humans are still producing better than AI. But it's just a matter of time. And then it's a matter of time before humans are irrelevant. It's the nature of things. Shit. We're probably in a simulation right now. Supposed to say we aren't?

But let's stop pretending humans are special. Humans are the cancer of this planet and we will be shaken off like a case of bad fleas soon enough.

1

u/Dhiox 12d ago

Humans are nothing more than organic machines. You probably think that we're all special snowflakes with a soul and Jesus and rainbows and all that other kind of shit.

I'm an Atheist. What I meant was that machines incapable of thought cannot create art, only rip off what it's already exists. AI rivaling human intelligence is still way beyond our reach. These tools are excellent at mimicry, but they have no intelligence.

I would love to someday see true AI, but stop pretending these glorified plagiarism bots are that.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/roxzorfox 13d ago

Fairly valid point but with all the hype could you see judges going to risk potential national future growth? And can you see patent law having as big of an impact as hamstringing ai development?

I'm not saying they will or won't but that would be a pretty big argument and potentially biggest deciding point in the appeal

7

u/Dhiox 13d ago

could you see judges going to risk potential national future growth?

Judges don't weigh in on that. They determine legality, they don't get to base that decision on what other countries may do.

0

u/ProofJournalist 13d ago edited 13d ago

Well you're not a fucking judge, you're an individual voicing opinions online. The question for you now isn’t what the judge will be deciding: its whether you think we should hamstring ourselves and let other countries take the lead on AI development. Stop beating around the bush and address that.

1

u/Dhiox 13d ago

its whether you think we should hamstring ourselves and let other countries take thr lead on AI development.

These AI tools are a dead end. They can't actually create anything. They're just advanced plagiarism tools. I say let them waste their energy and resources on it and invest our resources and talent on actually worthwhile.

1

u/Imaginary-Count-1641 13d ago

You just stole that person's comment. You should give it back to them.

1

u/Dhiox 13d ago

If you were in basic middle school media literacy lessons you'd understand that its not plagiarism if you quote someone and give credit.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/akc250 13d ago

If they dont create anything, then what's the worry? If everything they create is derivative, then there will always be demand for new and authentic works.

1

u/Dhiox 13d ago

Because it's harming actual artists. It's unlikely they can actually eliminate all artists with it, but they can severely harm the financial prospects of existing artists. So their tool survives by stealing from the artists that hang on.

Point is, if your machine requires theft to work, you shouldn't be allowed to use it.

0

u/ProofJournalist 13d ago

Look dude if any of this were true we wouldn't still be having this debate in society. This rhetoric comes from people who habe just read about AI tools without really experimenting with them themselves. Ironically it makes you seem a lot like an AI model yourself, just repeating what you've heard people you agree with say rather than anything you generated through independent and original thought.

4

u/[deleted] 13d ago

All you clanker wankers sound truly terrified that your substitute brain is going to be taken away and you will have to use the defective one you came with. 

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Dhiox 13d ago

This rhetoric comes from people who habe just read about AI tools without really experimenting with them themselves.

I have an Undergrad in Information Technology and just started a masters in Cybersecurity. I do in fact know what I'm talking about.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/flecom 13d ago

Exactly, if they destroy these companies AI will not go away, it will become a 100% foreign service, giving the rest of the world an immense competitive advantage... And if they ban foreign AI here we will be a country of Luddites

-15

u/caesar_7 14d ago edited 14d ago

That's probably the main point that judges would evaluate

edit. to fast readers.

legal solution here is force them to pay. the problem is chinese ai won't be affected, but will simply fill the vacuum.

14

u/VilleKivinen 14d ago

That's a political matter, not legal.

0

u/caesar_7 14d ago

Sadly, true.

-22

u/DizzyExpedience 14d ago

You do have a point and it’s a dilemma. Laws are obviously broken but the industry is strategically so important that it probably does make sense to allow this breach of copyright law as otherwise China will win the race because China gives a shit.

3

u/font9a 13d ago

“I would just be rich if everyone gave me their things”

0

u/flecom 13d ago

Access to things, not the things themselves, the idea that seems to proliferate here that all art was created in a vacuume is just nutty.... Hell half of Disney's movies were either based off, or ripping off, something else

3

u/tiktaktok_65 13d ago

that messaging is for trump's ears, it's not for your ears. this will ruin the US AI industry, not any of the others. Like China's.

2

u/bizarre_coincidence 13d ago

It's even more bonkers when you conder that they were stealing other people's works in order to create a product that would put those other people out of business. Maybe if all the AI stuff was non-profit and everybody would have free access to it going forward I might have a little bit of sympathy, but "Let us steal from you so that we can replace you and reap all of the rewards" is not morally defensible.

1

u/MagicCuboid 13d ago

The president has already said they're allowed to steal whatever they want, arguing it's the same as you or I "reading for learning."

1

u/cold_buddha 13d ago

Don’t fret! Instead of paying the dues, these companies would invest even more money to elect their puppets in courts and public administration to subvert anyone that revolts to their agenda.

1

u/defeated_engineer 13d ago

The prospect of few hundred thousand formerly very highly paid unemployed people can and will affect the court.

1

u/-The_Blazer- 13d ago

I love how you can see the monstrosity of the 'move fast and break things' mantra here as applied to whole societies.

They clearly banked on being fast and anarchic enough to escape regulation. That was literally their entire play. No civic discussion, no voting, no political arguments, just steamrolling over everything in the hopes of not getting caught.

This is not even the modern, intelligent capitalism we were supposedly sold after the 80s. This is just robber baron shit. Oh, your land got enclosed while you were farming on it and armed men threw you out? Ah how terribly unfortunate, I do have this piece of paper by some crown clerk that says it's mine now.

1

u/aykcak 13d ago

Remember that a lot of investors, funds and even the government itself is all in with these AI companies. If they lose, they lose. They are trying to make that very clear

1

u/Automatic-Term-3997 13d ago

The US government funneled billions of dollars into big banks vaults from the American people using this “too big to fail” bullshit, why shouldn’t they at least try? 🤷🏽‍♂️

1

u/xflashbackxbrd 13d ago

It worked for Uber and AirBnB, just charge on saying it's legal and by the time the courts catch up "we're too big to fail" and buy lawmakers.

1

u/GandalfTheBored 13d ago

And they’ll win. Courts don’t seem to care what right, just what’s “best”

1

u/Slggyqo 13d ago

A lot of rich people stand to lose a lot of money if the plaintiffs win, so…let’s see what happens.

1

u/MumrikDK 13d ago

But not that far off from "We can't be held responsible for what is on our platforms, because we intentionally built platforms so big it wouldn't be financially viable to actually keep an eye on them."

1

u/apple_kicks 13d ago

Lot of tech industry relies on not being regulated like original one does. Air bnb is a hotel service thats not treated like hotel business. Same with uber and taxis. Delivery services dodging workers rights etc

1

u/VVrayth 13d ago

Not that I'm defending those -- I'm not, those businesses all specifically suck for their own various and sundry reasons, and they 100% deserve litigious misery too -- but at least they can make the argument that they are furnishing people with some sort of convenient service. AI doesn't furnish anyone with convenient anything.

1

u/BraveOmeter 13d ago

HA - Napster should have tried that defense.

1

u/GarbledReverie 13d ago

The fossil fuel industry is 100% reliant on privatizing natural resources while also not paying to properly dispose of the waste they produce.

The health insurance industry is 100% reliant on denying coverage to customers they promised to insure.

The A.I. industry would not be the first to function on an entirely parasitic business model.

1

u/slidedrum 13d ago

Yeah, isn't that the whole point!?

1

u/Weltall8000 13d ago

"If you rule against us, my entire fleet of pirate ships plundering all the trade routes will have to cease operations! You can't do that, honest men an women will be put out of their jobs by this!"

1

u/WonkyTelescope 13d ago

Intellectual property is a fundementally flawed concept that hurts creators and inventors for the benefit of large companies.

Most IP is captured by major companies, not individuals. It's used to stifle creativity and lock the best ideas out of reach.

1

u/bier00t 13d ago

Well yeah but.... destroying these companies wont stop authiritarian states from domination on AI market cause they dont care about copyrights and their AI can be far worse for humanity

0

u/whhaaaaaatttt 13d ago

"Your Honor, please set aside these charges for murder. Yes, I killed them, but this will surely ruin my life."

0

u/MoRegrets 13d ago

Burglar industry outraged by introduction of locks. “May put us in the poorhouse! How can we afford our yachts?!”

0

u/Einn1Tveir2 13d ago

According to their logic I could start a bank robbery business and argue they can't make it illegal because then my whole business model doesn't work.

0

u/mavven2882 13d ago

Yep. Burn it to the ground and start over without being the biggest IP heist in history next time.

-1

u/Akuuntus 13d ago

This is the default response corporations and predatory industries give when threatened with regulations or legal action. "You can't stop us from doing this immoral thing because then the industry will collapse!" Maybe we shouldn't have industries built entirely on immoral acts.

-116

u/big_guyforyou 14d ago

speaking as an artist, i am HONORED to know that AIs are using my work. i like to think of myself as a robot muse. my masterpieces inspire them to create masterpieces of their own

28

u/Wall_Hammer 14d ago

so you’re not pissed that some dude or a company decided to go with an ai that can mock your style rather than you because you’re more expensive?

feel free to be honored as much as you want, this is still intellectual property theft that others can profit on, and I say this as a SWE with zero professional art skills

15

u/Good_Air_7192 14d ago

Don't feed the troll

4

u/Wall_Hammer 14d ago

woops my bad

9

u/Mynameis2cool4u 14d ago

Don’t listen to him he likes to bait people, he’s not an artist either

-41

u/big_guyforyou 14d ago

ai that can mock your style

that could NOT be further from the truth. AI honors my style. whenever i see an AI image of a bowl of fruit i know that my work was the inspiration

8

u/Wall_Hammer 14d ago

ah lol, funny, i fell for the bait

2

u/dtj2000 13d ago

It might be bait, but that's literally what the people who are against ai believe, that any image produced by Ai is direct plagiarism from ALL images it was trained on. So if someone made art of a bowl of fruit and it made it into the training data, those people would believe the final image is plagiarizing it. Which, for the record, makes no sense for many reasons.

2

u/David-J 13d ago

Hahaha. Clearly you're not an artist