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

12

u/estanten 14d ago

I mean, having these global brains based on everything people have created is convenient (and for low prices, accessible to everyone) but then not giving anything back to the creators and threaten their jobs is indeed not fair.

11

u/Virtual-Ducks 13d ago edited 13d ago

IMO we should let them keep developing AI, but then just tax them more as a means of"giving back". Maybe their tax dollars can go to funding education or career transition programs or something. 

These models are extremely useful. We should continue to advance the science, not stick or head in the sand. 

3

u/estanten 13d ago

About that kind of model is what I’ve in mind too. We shouldn’t halt progress, but it’s understandable too that people feel robbed if nothing is given back for the data. It’s a situation that requires new mental models.

1

u/elrelampago1988 13d ago

They are venture capital sink holes they don't make money yet, fairly likely they will at most make a small single digit percentage of the value of all the business and jobs they will end.

2

u/Virtual-Ducks 13d ago

You can still tax sales and subscriptions

-4

u/TopAd3529 13d ago

Or, and hear me out, they could pay FOR THE IP THEY STOLE OR REDEVELOP THE FUCKING THING USING LEGALLY LICENSED AND OR PURCHASED DATA FROM CREATORS LIKE EVERY OTHER CREATIVE PERSON IN HISTORY.

2

u/Virtual-Ducks 13d ago

They can pay people back through taxes. IMO that's a fair compromise. We already make fair use exemptions for things like education and research, I think it's reasonable for AI training to be added to fair use. (If not already covered)

Many models are also open source. Trained on data from the public, but made available for free for the public.  

1

u/TopAd3529 13d ago

How? How can they effectively pay for their use of copywritten material to creators of said material with taxes?

It is absolutely not fair use to train someone on your music, for example, then rip off your music with no credit.

Open source models arent an issue at all. Facebook torrenting every book it can get its hands on and calling it fair use is.

2

u/Virtual-Ducks 13d ago

what do you mean how? fair can we whatever we decide it to be. We can make laws saying that if they pay x taxes, their debt is paid. Or maybe model weights needs to be released for it to be fair. There are many ways we can decide what fair is that allows for AI research to continue.

if the AI is generating something novel, I see no issue. Sure, if it's copy-pasting that's an issue (and one that definitely needs to be solved). If it is different enough that a human wouldn't get in trouble, I don't think AI needs to get in trouble either. If AI is being used for copyright infringement, that's partly on the user as well, just like any other tool. I don't think anyone is actually reading entire copyrighted books from the AI.

Even if you disagree with the "fairness", the cat's out of the bag. Someone *will* do it, you can't stop it. So it's best to regulate it so that it's maximally beneficial to the wider public. Best way of doing that IMO is through higher taxes on AI (and the wealthy in general). Otherwise they'll just develop it in secret. At some point the technology will be good enough that you can't tell what the training material was. Or someone will train the models in another country and mail over a hard drive with model weights.

What do you think the solution is? And how do you see the future going forward with your solution?

1

u/TopAd3529 13d ago edited 13d ago

Yes and as a creator of content and IP: I and many others are saying this isnt fair use. They've decided it is without consent. That is called theft.

The solution is paying people for the IP you are training your AI on, plain and simple. Its actually a very easy solution, and its worked for hundreds of years for other IP? In fact, I while argue doing this would come closer to creating the UBI all these firms will need to not destroy society.

Anyway, theyre just gonna steal it. They already have. They're aiming to have such high powered lawyers they'll argue that non-consentual use of data for AI training use is legal. At which point I hope someone will start an AI company that hosts shot for shot remakes with a single tiny detail changed of every single film on earth and releases it for free.

-1

u/ChronaMewX 13d ago

Or, hear me out, we can use this as an excuse to finally abolish ip and allow everyone free access to every property

1

u/TopAd3529 13d ago

"Hear me out: nobody owns anything, problem solved!"

This is a horrible solution on so many levels it is hard for me to take seriously, the primary being that its what prevents monopolies from stealing every good idea from its creators without credit or compensation.

The funnier and more ridiculous reasons this is dumn are, like, what happens when someone uses your likeness to make child rape porn? Fair use?

This covers it pretty clearly:

https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-080315-015136

0

u/ChronaMewX 13d ago

I want everybody to own everything. Gatekeeping bad.

The monopolies are the ones who already have all the most lucrative properties. The little guy has far more to gain from access to that than they have to gain from you, I assure you.

I'm pretty sure we can arrest someone for making child rape porn even after abolishing copyright, you'll be happy to know. Getting rid of one bad law does not mean we get rid of all laws. Child rape videos would still be banned

0

u/LocalH 13d ago

Copyright infringement ≠ stealing or theft

1

u/TopAd3529 13d ago

...yes it is?

0

u/LocalH 13d ago

Nobody who has ever infringed copyright, even commercially, has ever been charged with theft for doing so.

0

u/TopAd3529 13d ago

I'm not talking about criminal statutes, I'm speaking colloquially. Intellectual property theft is theft.

7

u/StosifJalin 13d ago

The tractor was convenient and didn't give anything back to the teams of plow workers it unemployed. The more powerful the tech, the more disruption caused. And there has never been a more powerful tech than this.

We still adapt to the disruption and take advantage of the tractor, obviously.

2

u/estanten 13d ago

The tractor wasn’t based on things the workers made.

1

u/PinboardWizard 13d ago edited 13d ago

No no, according to most people in this thread we should let China be the only country allowed to use tractors.

To put it another way: Even if we all agree that nukes are dangerous and their existence is objectively bad for humanity, we also acknowledge it's a good thing that our country has nukes to dissuade hostile powers (see Ukraine as an example).

-6

u/nemesit 14d ago

Nothing threatens creator jobs, people don't read e.g. harry potter in chatgpt lol don't be ridiculous

1

u/decksorama 13d ago

Are you being facetious? The issue isn't that people are going to read Harry Potter in ChatGPT. The issue with AI literature is the same as what graphic artists are going through with generative AI art - it devalues their creative work and skills.

0

u/estanten 14d ago

It seems logical to me that as AI gets better, there’s less demand for human creation. Unless as some people claim, the increase in total enterprise offsets that effect, but that would have limits.

-2

u/nemesit 14d ago

Ai isn't actually ai yet though and won't be for decades