This post by Bruce Schneier contains so many thoughtful soundbites:
> The question is not simply whether copyright law applies to AI. It is why the law appears to operate so differently depending on who is doing the extracting and for what purpose.
> Like the early internet, AI is often described as a democratizing force. But also like the internet, AI’s current trajectory suggests something closer to consolidation.
schneier.com/blog/archives/202…
AI and the Corporate Capture of Knowledge - Schneier on Security
More than a decade after Aaron Swartz’s death, the United States is still living inside the contradiction that destroyed him. Swartz believed that knowledge, especially publicly funded knowledge, should be freely accessible.Bruce Schneier (Schneier on Security)
)
miki
in reply to Jamie Gaskins • • •I like looking at this through the concept of "enjoyment", which was originally developed in Japan I believe.
From that point of view, copyright only applies to a work when it is used for "enjoyment", for its intended purpose. If the work is primarily entertainment, it applies when the consumer is using it to entertain themselves. If the work is educative, it applies when the consumer is using it to learn something. It does not apply when the work is used for a purpose completely unrelated to its creation, such as testing a CD player on an unusual CD, demonstrating the performance of a speaker system, training a language model to classify customer complaints etc.
(This isn't a legal perspective, not even quite in Japan I believe, but it's useful lens through which we can look at the world and which people can use to decide on policy).