Google says AI systems should be able to mine publishers’ work unless companies opt out
www.theguardian.com
The tech company’s latest proposal about generative AI turns copyright law on its head, and could especially hurt smaller content creators, say experts

In its submission to the Australian government’s review of the regulatory framework around AI, Google said that copyright law should be altered to allow for generative AI systems to scrape the internet.

  • AbsolutelyNotABot@feddit.it
    1·
    1 year ago

    Look at this.

    It’s just a single example, there are endless songs which are samples of samples of samples… Once in a while YouTube content id will have some problems as it’s not perfect. It doesn’t mean the system is fundamentally flawed. Like saying every car on the planet is cursed because once you got a flat tyre.

    Only the rich and powerful or those willing to go deeply into debt are able to benefit from all of that extra research.

    Pay attention because the alternative to patents is not a “free for all” approach , it’s industrial secrecy. As research is still very much expensive for entities to carry out.

    Set aside than, no, extra research benefits everyone in the society as new cures for diseases are discovered faster and medicine evolve organically. Patents were the compromise to ensure companies could monetize their research while sharing their knowledge, are there other possible equilibrium? Sure, but we still have to remember we live in the real world, you can’t have a cake and eat it

      • AbsolutelyNotABot@feddit.it
        1·
        1 year ago

        YT’s system that had messed up and not the legal system.

        Oh the legal system is very much messed up, YouTube tried to put a bandage in it. You have to consider that usually you would need a full personalized legal contract for each piece of copyrighted material you use. Content id tries to automate the process, but it’s not perfect.

        A 10-20% royalty should be more than enough to incentivise research while still preventing price-fixing and monopolies.

        Which is what happens with patents today. The company holding the patent rarely also physical produces the drug, they usually have “manufacturing agreements” expecially in geographic far markets; where they let a second company make the drug with the company holding the patent on it and they are free to sell it in exchange for a percentage of the label price.

        That’s also what happened with vaccines and many other medications, it’s like the standard procedure lol