Voice actors have a union.
Designers and engineers generally don't. Yet.
FlowVoid
joined 1 year ago
Making something publicly available does not automatically give everyone unrestricted rights to it.
For example, you do not have permission to make copies of articles in the NYT even when they are available to the public. In fact, a main purpose of IP law is to define certain rights over a work even after it is seen by the public.
In the case of AI, if training requires making a local copy of a protected work then that may be copyright infringement even if the local copy is later deleted. It's no different than torrenting a Disney movie and deleting your copy after you watched it.
This is going to involve Bitcoin, isn't it?
Ok, so if I visit a travel site with a Like button, then Facebook knows someone visited that site.
Later if I visit a sports site with a Like button, then Facebook knows someone visited that site too.
But since I don't let Facebook store cookies on my browser, Facebook still can't link the first visit to the second one. Or link those visits to any future sites I visit. So how it can serve personalized ads on them?
Even sharing information, how do they build a profile without third party cookies?
For instance, suppose I visit a travel website on Thursday and a sports website on Friday. Even if they work together, how do they figure that the person who visited on Thursday is the same as the person who visited on Friday? And how would Facebook match that when I visit them in order to serve a travel or sports ad?
If I ban third party cookies, use a VPN, and obfuscate my browser/hardware, then I don't see how they could build a profile that follows me around the web.
How can Facebook track your browsing habits if they can't access third party cookies?
No. For example, most people who pirate software, movies, and music do not sell anything. But they are still violating copyright.
You don't need a license to learn from a story, but if learning requires you first to make an enduring copy of the story on your laptop then you could be violating copyright.
And neural nets generally require a local enduring copy of their training data, which means they too could be violating copyright.
Doctors will never use a test that is only 90% accurate.
A more realistic scenario is to start with a simple test that has low false negative rate (<5%) but prone to obtain a false positive. If the test is negative then testing stops. If it is positive then they confirm the diagnosis with a more complex test with a low false positive rate.
That's what they used to say about Microsoft.
Only if you believe Apple is basically Google.
For AI training, you nearly always need a local copy of the data.
Yes, and that copy is provided with restrictions. You can view your copy in a browser, but not necessarily use it for other purposes.
Those cases have delineated what Google is and is not allowed to do. It can only copy a short snippet of the page as a summary. This was ruled "fair use" largely because a short snippet does not compete against the original work. If anything it advertises the original work, just as movie reviews are allowed to copy short scenes from the movie they are reviewing.
On the other hand, AIs are designed to compete against the authors of the works they downloaded. If so, a fair use defense is unlikely to succeed.
Disney does put its work online for people to see. So does the New York Times. That doesn't mean you can make an unrestricted copy of what you see.
Both are illegal in the US, although copyright holders generally prefer to go after uploaders.