Login
You're viewing the y.diskcat.com public feed.
  • Big Blu GnuBig_Blue_Gnu@mastodon.social
    Sep 5, 2026, 12:41 AM

    @eff The irony here is that this is the same EFF that has worked to liberalize copyright law, this lawsuit being no different. Unpopular as AI training may be, I am a bit surprised to see the pushback to the EFF's actions (which honestly looks like a coordinated, corporate-backed effort to shore up support for copyright maximalism), but I get why taking a principled stand is unpopular since it necessarily entails defending unpopular positions occasionally. Even Techdirt defends the practice.

    💬 8🔄 1⭐ 4

Replies

  • Big Blu GnuBig_Blue_Gnu@mastodon.social
    Sep 5, 2026, 12:43 AM

    @eff And be warned, "stealing" in the context of copyright infringement is industry propaganda, as is "piracy".

    💬 2🔄 0⭐ 5
  • Quest 💚corigan01@todon.nl
    Sep 5, 2026, 12:54 AM

    @Big_Blue_Gnu @eff I think people use the term "stealing" because AI is stealing their wages with the information it "learned" (stole) from them.

    People are not defending copyright from human participants, but instead are pushing back on the very technology that took away the ability for them to learn and grow in the first place.

    AI is an unfair game played by massive corporations, they are not paying their fair share to the real humans who made it, and instead are passing it off as their own (ie plagiarism).

    I think a lot of the sentiment is about how AIs are effectively plagiarism because they steal the work without attribution and redistribute the accreditation of such work to the AI company.

    💬 0🔄 12⭐ 29
  • Wolf480plwolf480pl@mstdn.io
    Sep 5, 2026, 7:08 AM

    @Big_Blue_Gnu
    They are stealing whenever their scrapers cause a website to become unavailable to other visitors - either through being overloaded, or by requiring login, or by adding Anubis with high enough difficulty that mobile phones can't solve the challenge.

    AI is also destroying the incentives that allowed forums and Q&A sites to accumulate the knowledge that it is now scraping.
    @eff

    💬 0🔄 3⭐ 9
  • Cassandrichdalias@hachyderm.io
    Sep 5, 2026, 12:44 AM

    @Big_Blue_Gnu @eff Um, no. Our rage is not corporate-backed and is not copyright-maximalism. The idea that AI training is wrong is copyright-minimalist. It doesn't even depend on copyright, just "moral rights" of authors.

    💬 2🔄 8⭐ 37
  • nagaramnagaram@gts.thinkstoomuch.net
    Sep 5, 2026, 2:59 AM

    @dalias
    @Big_Blue_Gnu @eff

    First off, I agree that AI companies are bad and they stole from probably every single one of us and especially authors to work the way they do.

    BUT, I think its important to recognize that we're at one hell of a cross roads.

    On the one hand, we can agree with the AI companies and say that this is transformative and therefore fair use. We can still argue that the data was almost certainly stole via piracy, but the important argument by the AI company is turning books into training data and making an LLM is transformative.

    On the other hand, we can agree with the media industry. That copyright laws need to be tightened and more strictly enforced so that an AI company can get in trouble if they produce content that even vaguely resembles a copyrighted IP. Disney will go after power cable companies for the damn Mickey Mouse plugs.

    And I hate both of these options. I imagine most people hate both these options, but without a good "middle of the road" option at the moment, I'm gonna have to side with the AI companies on the question of fare use.

    Everything else about their scheme is deplorable and easy to hate. I will be excited when the scheme fails.

    I also recognize they're not "on our side" about copyright they are simply exploiting fair use. That said I think if they win, they will weaken IP laws over all.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Cassandrichdalias@hachyderm.io
    Sep 5, 2026, 3:05 AM

    @nagaram @Big_Blue_Gnu @eff Stop it! This is such a batshit delusional take. There is utterly no way in which fascist corporations and a fascist legal system are going to deliver *to us* the death of copyright! They are not trying to do that! They are seeking a carve-out to take from us while giving nothing back. They are seeking to make things strictly worse for us.

    💬 2🔄 3⭐ 29
  • nagaramnagaram@gts.thinkstoomuch.net
    Sep 5, 2026, 3:32 AM

    @dalias
    @Big_Blue_Gnu @eff

    What's the delusion here?

    If there's a carve out, unless it explicitly states some cringe shit like "Copyright good and strong unless you're a recognized AI company" (which I won't rule out). Then is that not a weakening of copyright for the purposes of fare use?

    I want to be convinced of this but I don't see a rational path for copyright specifically to be made worse. That doesn't make sense as a goal for the AI companies since the cost to end these class actions would probably be the cost of a single data center to get all the publishers off their back and then simply ignore the rest of us.

    Best case is copyright gets weakened or we get another argument against it, or the most likely thing is the AI corpos settle with Penguin and the gang every time they get caught every couple of years.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • LisPilispi314@udongein.xyz
    Sep 5, 2026, 4:16 AM
    @dalias @Big_Blue_Gnu @eff I want the "AI" to die for other reasons more pertinent to ethics.

    The part that annoys me with regard to copyright is the hypocrisy. The deliberate exception because it's part of the capital-owning class (or those under their effective orders) that's doing the mass infringement. Try doing so yourself and you'll drown in debt.

    Copyright could and should be abolished, my ethical objections would remain untouched.
    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Emelia/Emibecomethewaifu@tech.lgbt
    Sep 5, 2026, 1:24 AM

    @Big_Blue_Gnu @eff When one of the (supposedly) main reasons 'copyright' was created was to incentivize creation (despite how corporate interests have perverted it over the decades), it's only natural to refuse to accept a machine whose stated fucking purpose is to push creators out of the market in favor of regurgitated slop from a machine made from copying those creators' works.

    An artist attempting to survive off their creations cannot reasonably create if everyone who would have hired them just rings up the slop-o-matic instead. So if copyright truly is an "incentive to create", this behavior must not be considered "fair use."

    Copyright needs to be reformed, yes, but this isn't reform. This is an attempt to overturn it for corporations in the name of profit, all while playing "rules for thee but not for me."

    💬 0🔄 11⭐ 38
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 3
  • mirabilos🐈‍⬛mirabilos@toot.mirbsd.org
    Sep 5, 2026, 2:19 AM

    @Big_Blue_Gnu @eff it has not even to do with copyright maximalism, “AI” is a deeply fascist technology and has a multitude of problems, on different axes, that, each alone, are already an absolute reason for it to need to be destroyed.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • pork_slampork_slam@mastodon.social
    Sep 5, 2026, 5:18 AM

    @Big_Blue_Gnu @eff just because people are pushing back, does not mean it's corporate backed. People are standing behind EFF's principles here, or at least what "we" thought they stood for. This is dissappointing on so many levels.

    💬 0🔄 1⭐ 6
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0