There isn’t one. Copyright owners can block uses unless certain fair use conditions are met.
I am claiming this is wrong, others should be able to build on the ideas others have created so long as they share revenue with the first creator, recursively. Ironically fair use, which llms may turn out to fall under, mean the fair user doesn’t need to compensate the original owners a dime.
The Google books case, the 2nd circuit agreed that copying the full contents of most books ever published was fair use, and providing search engine services where the full text contents of all those books are searched, and small snippets provided to online users, was fair use, and compensation is not required.
I am not a copyright lawyer, but the LLM cases seems to have the same elements as Google books case.
To actually change the real world in this regard, at least in the US, there will need to be arguments to cross many hurdles, such as to convince a majority of congressmen, and inevitably many judges when it get’s challenged. And probably even beyond since the USG has ratified most of WIPO, which it can’t unilaterally change.
Inevitably there will have to be convincing legal arguments or else this won’t get far enough for it to practically matter.
If you don’t have any right now, maybe try focusing your efforts on coming up with some?
Copyright law doesn’t protect scientific facts so progress is able to be made, and it probably doesn’t protect authors and artists, so data inefficient AI can be trained.
I was simply noting it causes a dead weight loss in creative output, which has become much worse by extending copyright to effectively eternity. Almost everyone alive when steamboat willy hit theaters is not.
There isn’t one. Copyright owners can block uses unless certain fair use conditions are met.
I am claiming this is wrong, others should be able to build on the ideas others have created so long as they share revenue with the first creator, recursively. Ironically fair use, which llms may turn out to fall under, mean the fair user doesn’t need to compensate the original owners a dime.
The Google books case, the 2nd circuit agreed that copying the full contents of most books ever published was fair use, and providing search engine services where the full text contents of all those books are searched, and small snippets provided to online users, was fair use, and compensation is not required.
I am not a copyright lawyer, but the LLM cases seems to have the same elements as Google books case.
To actually change the real world in this regard, at least in the US, there will need to be arguments to cross many hurdles, such as to convince a majority of congressmen, and inevitably many judges when it get’s challenged. And probably even beyond since the USG has ratified most of WIPO, which it can’t unilaterally change.
Inevitably there will have to be convincing legal arguments or else this won’t get far enough for it to practically matter.
If you don’t have any right now, maybe try focusing your efforts on coming up with some?
There are lower hanging fruit with greater ROI.
Copyright law doesn’t protect scientific facts so progress is able to be made, and it probably doesn’t protect authors and artists, so data inefficient AI can be trained.
I was simply noting it causes a dead weight loss in creative output, which has become much worse by extending copyright to effectively eternity. Almost everyone alive when steamboat willy hit theaters is not.
How do you know the ‘dead weight loss in creative output’ outweighs the positive effects in the first place?
It doesn’t seem obvious at all to me if there are no such arguments put forward.