Explorer09 's Techdirt Comments
Latest Comments (114)
-
On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use
Explorer09 ( profile ), 21 Jun, 2025 @ 11:22amAs if the AI companies don't exploit creators or put workers out of their jobs… -
On the post: The Way Forward For AI: Learning From The Elephant & The Blind Men
Explorer09 ( profile ), 21 Jun, 2025 @ 09:36amThe societal benefits of AI are dubious, but I know of one societal harm here. Air pollution in Memphis due to Elon Musk's xAI. This video is from More Perfect Union Foundation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VJT2JeDCyw
-
On the post: The Way Forward For AI: Learning From The Elephant & The Blind Men
Explorer09 ( profile ), 21 Jun, 2025 @ 09:31amThis pro-AI author ignored the elephants in the room of AI that AI is easy to do societal harm such as deepfakes, misinformation and identity fraud, let alone environmental harms including energy waste and air pollution. How does the so-called AI innovation helps the human society anyway?
-
On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use
Explorer09 ( profile ), 21 Jun, 2025 @ 01:30amYet you link to their propaganda ministry, the Copyright Alliance…
Copyright Alliance isn't just RIAA, mind you. You shouldn't treat their opinions as mere propaganda before you go actually read them and understand what they are talking about. Unless you are all anti-copyright can you disregard them. -
On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use
Explorer09 ( profile ), 21 Jun, 2025 @ 01:23amRIAA’s position in the marketplace is significantly better than position of random pirates. Mainly because RIAA and the music publishers worked hard to get working products to the consumers on large scale. Pirates have no such defense.
No. The point is RIAA only works for the best interests of the big record labels, and doesn't care about independent artists. RIAA can lobby to make law that makes independent artists' life harder. -
On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use
Explorer09 ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2025 @ 02:08am@terop @MrWilson Just a reminder I don't like RIAA as they had a bad reputation of push an anti-copying technology (SCMS) that didn't work (to stop illegal copying), and hurt independent musicians that use consumer equipments for legal copying. (See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act) This copy restriction went beyond the Sony (Betamax case) safe harbor. Restricting a function on consumer equipment that has perfectly legal uses.
-
On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use
Explorer09 ( profile ), 20 Jun, 2025 @ 01:56amSecond, you’re choosing a scenario that isn’t realistic. You’re starting with the assumption that they’re infringing copyrights and therefore learning is infringing, but it’s perfectly possible and perfectly legal to learn from copyrighted material.
Yes, I am using the scenario that "learning" is infringing. And by the way that "learning" word is in scare quotes because in this scenario it's commercial reproduction of copyrighted works under the guise of "learning". If the "students" in this scenario publish nothing and sell nothing, there is no infringement! But heck that is not the example!And this doesn’t serve as an analogy for LLM training because nothing of the original content is quoted.
No. Even when the LLM quotes nothing it can still be infringing. The case can be when it takes the sentences or paragraphs and translates word by word into another language, so that it technically quotes "nothing of the original", but the creative expression through careful arrangements of words is still copied. This is technically a derivative, but still an exclusive right to the copyright holder.And more importantly, you’re ignoring that this is how human beings learn to write. You read the works of others. You compose sentences by seeing how other people compose sentences and some of those compositions you observe are still protected under copyright.
I can write without reading any copyrighted work! This analogy is fucking nonsense. It's nonsense because you assume there is no public domain literature. And you are a hypocrite when you argue about public domain in your examples, while denying public domain in examples other people mentioned.Here’s the pertinent part of the claim: “In May 2023, Microsoft and OpenAI unveiled “Browse with Bing,” a plugin to ChatGPT that enabled it to access the latest content on the internet through the Microsoft Bing search engine.”
Irrelevant. RAG (retrieval augmented generation) is likely not fair use either, and it also "reproduce" copies that is copyright infringement.I’m not defending the practices of the large AI companies. I’m defending the singular principle that training an LLM isn’t itself necessarily copyright infringement. You keep using me as a proxy for the AI companies despite my disavowing them from the beginning. I’m not your AI company straw man.
You are effectively defending AI companies! Not a straw man. Because none of the research purpose only AI are being sued. What are being sued are commercial AI models despite they have secondary uses that are non-commercial. And keep in mind the bottom line is: There is no blanket fair use for generative AI. Whether the AI model training is fair use depends on the ultimate use of the AI by its users.
You have fucking no idea how court judges rule fair use. In the U.S., the law doesn't state "book report is always fair use" nor "commentary is always fair use", because there could always be exception cases where a "report" reproduce a significant portion of the original work, so that the "report" becomes a market substitute of the original. The court judges have to always evaluate the four factors to determine fair use. No skipping steps. Factor one: Purpose is commercial selling of the book (against fair use). Factor two: Nature of copyright work is fiction books, but likely already published (neutral or slight for fair use). Factor three: The amount taken is likely not minimal (neutral, but let's consider this leans for fair use for the sake of argument). Factor four: It creates a market substitute for Stephen King's own guidebooks on how to write fictions (thus against fair use in this most important factor). This is how in the U.S. the fair use is evaluated. Oh wait, this analysis is quite similar to the Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence ruling in the district court.What if the book becomes bestselling later on?
It’s still fair use and commentary as long as it doesn’t quote too much of his original work. You can describe a writer’s style without quoting it. You can describe plots and characters and sentence structure without quoting the author’s words. You’ve apparently never read a book report.You keep adding the “with significant quotes from Stephen King’s copyrighted works” part. That’s not what does happen when humans learn to write from reading someone else’s work.
The analogy does not have to be "realistic" as of how humans would do it. It's AI. That is one difference between human learning and AI "learning", mind you. The AI training process copies significant amount of works during the data gathering phase, which is even before the data is transformed into neural network weights.
Quote the exact section and sub-section of the law.What bullshit are you talking about? There is no such a right as “using the work within the people lifetime”.
There was originally. [U.S. Copyright Act of 1790]
Are you suggesting the U.S. Copyright law is unconstitutional? Because no case law ruled that, and the quoting of your Amendment 10 is vague because no even a State law implies a right of "using a copyrighted work within a person's lifetime". Unless you can sue to the Supreme Court about the constitutionally of the modern copyright law, I would disregard this one as being unfounded.Quote the U.S. constitution for such a right.
Amendment 10: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”They are more important than copyright and they have been weakened and subverted by the big media companies you have chosen to side with.
Irrelevant. Because AI is not a person and has no free speech.I’m not touching a link to an industry-backed organization. You’re saying, “these are the good guys, just read their propaganda and they’ll tell you.”
The Supreme Court ruling in Warhol is not propaganda, and you can try ignoring all arguments of the opposite side, but by doing do I'll ignore your argument (and those from EFF, too). It's good to live yourself in an echo chamber, until you see the fact that the Supreme Court wasn't on your side.
I don't have to "stop that", but I can get paid for my work and use it on environmental protection campaigns that could eventually stop that. I'm not the good guy as I have said before. I just want bad guys to stop exploiting the creative labor of humans.Then the solution is not to let AI win but to fucking address the AI problems and not adopt AI blindly!
How do you propose doing that? You don’t have influence over all those companies and institutions. They have free will. They’re going to do it whether you or I approve. Setting a legal precedent that all LLM training requires licensing won’t stop that.You’re complaining that technology can be exploited for unethical purposes. Of course it can. It always has been. It will continue to be in the future. It’s not effective to outlaw technology. You have to regulate human actions.
And the copyright law fits exactly one of the purposes of regulating AI, especially on the no-exploitation-of-human-labor part.The scenario is that my health insurance and health care provider will be using AI to handle my case.
Oh yeah and I would stop your damn health care provider from using AI for your case because that's exploitation and should be stopped.The whole fucking point is that this will be pushed on people against their preference.
And the whole fucking point is creative worker are exploited by AI companies without their "preference" either.I likely pay a lot more than you pay and for worse health care than you probably get because the wealthy assholes who run the US won’t blink at an opportunity to monetize every human need.
Why should I care about your health care if there is a chance that I may live with a shorter lifetime than you? This is off-topic, but the point is that it's not necessary for your healthcare to depend on AI, and even when it does, it's not an excuse for exploiting creative works (why should healthcase AI be trained with novels anyway?)But you also don’t represent anyone else, which makes your entire stance useless unless you’re purporting to be a creator whose works are published in the US.
True. And I am stripped that market opportunity because of AI. -
On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use
Explorer09 ( profile ), 19 Jun, 2025 @ 11:00amYou’re saying that learning is a copyright violation if that learning is recorded in a fixed medium. Except the learning is neither the original work nor a derivative work. Here’s an example: Author Joe Smith writes this paragraph. The woman told him that he would encounter death if he chose to walk into the garden, but he walked in anyway. In the garden, he encountered a cloaked figure who spoke with a supernatural resonance in his voice and who knew the man’s fate. The man realized that this was Death whom he had encountered in the garden, just as the woman said. And a student reading this passage might write notes like: “Play on words – ‘encounter death’ can mean to die, but it could also mean ‘encounter the personification of death.’ Use play on words in the future to seem clever in your writing.” The student references only the phrase “encounter death” from the original work. It’s de minimis and the phrase itself doesn’t qualify for copyright protection itself since it’s so generic and common. It would only be copyrighted in the context of the greater work. The student learned a process about writing, specifically in this scenario about using word play to surprise the reader. This is not at all in any fashion a copyright violation.
No. It's not students writing "encounter death" constitute copyright infringement. It's students writing "The woman told him that he would encounter death if he chose to walk into the garden ... In the garden, he encountered a cloaked figure who spoke with a supernatural resonance in his voice and who knew the man’s fate. The man realized that this was Death" that constitutes copyright infringement. The infringement happens on the bigger context and word & sentence arrangements, not the de minimis cases of individual words or phrases. Not about a word play either.This isn’t itself illegal. Style’s aren’t subject to copyright protection.
You are oversimplifying things. (1) Styles of a specific artist are protected under TRADEMARK LAW. (2) Style mimicry while replicating a significant portion of the original author's work is still copyright infringement. You can't escape liability by just say you copy someone's "style", because the devil is in the details.
Have you read any lawsuit complaint before you make this BLATANTLY FALSE claim? Here is one, New York Times v. OpenAI, read pages 30 to 32: https://admin.bakerlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/ECF-1-Complaint-1-1.pdfAnd the students also quote substantial content of Stephan King’s work without permission.
This is different. You’ve included this to make it illegal. But it’s not even analogous to LLM learning. LLMs do not quote or contain the original works they’re trained on.A random student who isn’t a bestseller author publishing a book about Stephen King’s writing style will not compete with Stephen King’s own book on his writing style.
What if the book becomes bestselling later on? This defense is fucking stupid when it comes to factor four on fair use.But you denied that writing a book report or essay on Stephen King’s works was commentary. Even publishing a book on Stephen King’s writing style would be considered commentary.
Yes I deny it. Why? Educating other people on Stephen King's style with significant quotes from Stephen King's copyrighted works go beyond the boundary of being a commentary. I did't even mention about AI regurgitating.They [expanded] copyright beyond its original term such that it is now the life of the author plus 70 years, which has deprived the public of the use of the public domain works within their own lifetime. If I die before 70, I will be dead before a work written during my lifetime is available in the public domain. But the lobbying and bribery by media companies has also bought corrupt politicians and deprived citizens of their right to representation and the right of redress of their government. When the legislature writes laws for the wealthy, they are not representing the people or upholding the Constitution. The normalization of this corruption and bribery opens the door for more big corporations and “campaign donors” to further subvert democracy and representation. This deprives US citizens of some of the most fundamental constitutional rights since it affects free speech, free press, the right to petition the government, and the right to representation within Congress, among others. And this corruption affects other rights since wealthy corporations can support candidates who support creating more rights for wealthy corporations and those candidates may also violate other civil and human rights. Some media companies have donated to Donald Trump and he’s violated uncountable human and civil rights, so they are at best indirectly supporting those violations.
(Emphasis added) What bullshit are you talking about? There is no such a right as "using the work within the people lifetime". Quote the U.S. constitution for such a right. The latter things about "right to representation" or "free speech, free press" have nothing to do with copyright. These are bullshit debunked many times. (I know this position is from EFF, but after Warhol v. Goldsmith case, the EFF didn't ever learn. See also: https://copyrightalliance.org/warhol-foundations-flawed-transformative-use-theory/)I’m recognizing the fact that corporate leaders are only too eager to embrace “AI” for almost anything. Some educational institutions are embracing it’s use. Many corporations are hiring “prompt engineers.” Customer service representatives are being replaced by LLM chatbots. You have to be blind not to see the inevitability that the wealthy and the corporate leaders are going to force more and more AI on everyone.
Then the solution is not to let AI win but to fucking address the AI problems and not adopt AI blindly! Copyright theft is just one of the problems with AIs. Misinformation, deepfakes, fraud, energy waste, dehumanizing creativity, are all there.When I’m old and needing greater amounts of health care, I want the LLM that gets assigned to my case not be programmed to maximize profits but rather to take my health into greatest consideration.
Then your position still exploits human workers that put efforts in your health care stuff. You don't bother pay any human that would help in your later life. So you're selfish. But that's fine, because every worker is selfish when they want to make a living and get paid and not get exploited.We’ve already established that for any possible reference you make to an ethical position or concern about the environment, you’re willing to throw that out the window in favor of big media corporations and their profits, which exist in the first place at the expense of the creators and poor people.
Dismiss "poor people", you can only represent yourself. -
On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use
Explorer09 ( profile ), 17 Jun, 2025 @ 08:11pmThere are other software vendors that ship non-crashing software. So your basic claim like that isn't helpful.
-
On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use
Explorer09 ( profile ), 17 Jun, 2025 @ 10:50am
Stronger claims require stronger evidences. Since you didn't provide any evidence about your claim, that would be misleading advertising.please stop advertising your on software as anything better than others’.
Nope. Then I would be lying. -
On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use
Explorer09 ( profile ), 17 Jun, 2025 @ 12:34amand I just happen to have the newest and most bleeding edge software available on the planet
@terop, please stop advertising your on software as anything better than others'. -
On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use
Explorer09 ( profile ), 13 Jun, 2025 @ 10:01pmFor environmental impact on AI, see also these: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/ai-has-environmental-problem-heres-what-world-can-do-about https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/air-pollution-and-the-public-health-costs-of-ai
-
On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use
Explorer09 ( profile ), 13 Jun, 2025 @ 09:53pmFirst, let’s cover the fact that you’re actively questioning the legality of humans learning to write under copyright law you don’t understand. This is absurd. Are you going to claim that eating food is a trademark violation next? This ignorance is appalling. If you need this explained to you, you are admitting you don’t understand US copyright law whole cloth.
I intentionally question this so that you can explain your theory about how human learning fits the four fair use factors. Not because I believe that human learning is non-infringing, but because your "fair use" analysis on this simple case might be backed by any court ruling. (And if so, your claim about AI training being fair use would become flawed theory as well.)But a four factor analysis would weigh easily in favor of reading to learn to write because the use is transformative (turning the reading of the content into pattern recognition of language composition in an intangible, non-fixed human brain medium) and the fact that the use wouldn’t affect the market for the original.
I would say this answer of yours might be wrong. But I am not certain that mine is right (you should ask a lawyer to confirm my answer). Anyway: According to 17 U.S. Code § 101, the definition of a "copy" required the work to be "fixed" in a "material object". The memories in human brain cells are not "fixed" in a strict sense, and so humans memorising stuff is not considered "reproduction" in the copyright law, and as a result, there is no need to consider fair use factors.Nobody refuses to buy a book from an author because a kid somewhere has read it before.
Hold on, there are people who do choose not to buy a book if they had read it somewhen before. E.g. they may had borrowed the book from someone (assuming that book is a legal copy). This can affect the fourth factor i.e. book sales, on the fair use. If I didn't argue that memorization in brain cells is "not fixed" and thus "not a copy"...Teachers can make copies of works for educational purposes. Section 110(2) of the U.S. Copyright Act.
§ 110 (2)(A), this exemption applies to "a governmental body or an accredited nonprofit educational institution" only. Nothing to do with AI training, and if you are a for-profit corporation, this section never applies. Again, it's to show many copyright exemptions to human learning don't apply to AI training, and the analogy between the two is fundamentally flawed in the legal sense. The layman's words for this is unlike humans, AIs don't have rights to learn.[H]ere’s the goddamn kicker: Stephen King wrote a whole fucking book called “On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft” in order to teach writers how to write like him!
Except that the cited Stephen King's instructonal book is not part of this example! It's about how students pretend to be Stephen King and write a book about how to write like Stephen King without King's permission! If the students write generic instructional books about how to write without any mentions of King (or merely comments about how King inspired them), then the case would be much easier because then the students' works would have no direct extraction of King's works (or too minimal to bring copyright concerns). Even if there is reference or extraction of King's works, the results would be "transformative" enough to not look like Stephen King's works or their derivatives at all.The notes aren’t a derivative work because they don’t contain the original work and if they contain any part of the original work, that would be a de minimis use and the rest of the work that contains the commenter’s own thoughts would still qualify for its own copyright. They just wouldn’t own the copyright on any quoted parts written by the original writer.
Emphasis added. Because I didn't assume in this hypothetical scenario the quotes are de minimis use. And for substantial quotes the question comes in: The original writer didn't give license to you to quote substantial portions of his book. And how would you justify fair use on that? Especially when the students books are later sold commercially.If your theories of copyright were correct, almost all learning in public and private educational institutions would be illegal.
No, this is not my claim. The claim is about students selling books telling readers how to write "in Stephan King's style" without permission from Stephen King. And the students also quote substantial content of Stephan King's work without permission. Note that as you cited that Stephan King also wrote instructional books, this mean a market competition with King's instructional book directly, which could affect the factor four analysis in "fair use".Students would be violating copyright to write a book report or an essay on a work.
I didn't deny the legality of commentaries.Large media corporations have already hurt US citizens by bribing politicians and expanding copyright far beyond its original intent and purpose.
What purpose?They have already deprived US citizens of their rights. They have already subverted the democratic process and disenfranchised voters’ rights.
Which rights are specifically deprived?"If corporations lose cases and the result is a legal precedent that all training requires financial compensation, poor people will not be able to afford to train LLMs and therefore only wealthy corporations will be able to.” The large AI corporations can pay for licenses if they lose. Poor people won’t be able to. So we’ll only have big, expensive, powerful AI companies licensing their AI to the government, to educational institutions. The future of our society will be controlled by the LLMs trained by the wealthy. You’re functionally just saying you want your bribe before they make my society worse.
Before I request a proof of how that could happen, I would ask another thing? Why do you have to rely everything on the LLM, as if people cannot work without LLM in all industries? There's one thing I need to mind you: You only need a pen, and not LLM, to write, and a brush and ink, not LLM, to draw. Why the heck did the entire world depend on a technology that is more harmful to environment than before (in terms of energy waste, and air pollution)? That's part of the reason I don't buy your argument about "[copyright/creative monopoly] making the society worse". As AI is already worse for the environment already. By the way, I dismiss your "poor people" claim here again. -
On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use
Explorer09 ( profile ), 13 Jun, 2025 @ 01:55pmI didn’t get permission or obtain a license to learn to write from reading the books I read that were subject to copyright, because I didn’t have to. US copyright law doesn’t require that! The doctrine of first sale, fair use (107)
How do the four factor of 17 U.S. Code § 107 grant you permission on that?the TEACH Act
Which section and clause?106 doesn’t give copyright holders the right to restrict learning from copyrighted material.
It's not restricting AI "learning", it's restricting AI reproduction of copyrighted work under the guise of "learning". § 106(1) and § 106(2) the exclusive rights to reproduction and derivative works. In case you didn't get it, here's a hypothetical example: A group of students learn to write horror fiction by reading novels by Stephen King, and through learning, the students are asked by their teacher to write book reports or "notes" documenting how a novel in King's style can be made (so they're not just reviews or commentaries that are "safe harbors" in fair use judgements), and then these "notes for creating works in Stephen King's style" later got published and sold commercially. How do people claim that these student's "learning" is fair use? Here, the claim that AI doesn't store any piece of the work won't help. (1) The "notes" are "fixed in tangible media" and thus subject to copyright. (2) Even though the works are not present in the final use, the "notes" here are under derivative work category and "learning" is not an excuse for this one being fair. (3) The mention of specific author name in these "notes", means that author can accuse trademark infringements in addition to copyright infringements. For now in court, the "styles can't be copyrighted" defense cannot apply to this (Andersen v. Stability AI). So, how do you answer?
I'm not saying I would harass anyone. I was saying if you cannot bring any person here as a direct witness, then your claim of me hurting "poor people" is unfounded and I dismiss it. You carry the burden of proof of your claim, not me.You cite Len Kaminski, and so I am fucking serious to ask this question, did he support piracy like you do?
I haven’t supported piracy, so that’s a straw man unto itself. Len can represent himself, but I don’t recommend trying to harass him over your issues. He hasn’t been in good health recently. But he is a poor US citizen and a creator who has been fucked over by the big media companies you’re championing, which is another reason you shouldn’t bother him. You’re arguing in favor of the people who are responsible for his current state.I never supported piracy, yet you’ve asserted that legally accessing freely available, permissively licensed content is piracy and a copyright violation. Your entire argument is a giant bundle of arrogant ignorance and straw men.
You support piracy of AI companies under the guise of "machine learning"!!! While I asked why the fuck can't AI companies train with only public domain content, you dodged the question and then simply insist that machine learning is legal (even when the source of training data is pirated)! That's your stance, damnit. It cannot be any clearer. If you really focus on "permissively licensed content" for training, then you should condemn the AI companies doing illegal actions. Otherwise the stance you claimed you are is not the same as what you behave.Poor US citizens and creators exist.
Dismissed. (Even when poor citizens and creators exist, you can't represent them. No witness showing up, so this argument is moot even when what you say is a fact.) -
On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use
Explorer09 ( profile ), 13 Jun, 2025 @ 04:16amWikipedia is more likely to feature famous, wealthy, or deceased people. You should search a white pages listing instead. But also, pinpointing a single person seems really weird since the category includes 300 million other people. Are you planning to harass Bob or something?
I want to you bring that Bob to show up on this website as a witness. So you can't just frame a random Bob and make a claim that you represent him (or them). -
On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use
Explorer09 ( profile ), 13 Jun, 2025 @ 04:12amI didn’t get permission or obtain a license to learn to write from reading the books I read that were subject to copyright, because I didn’t have to. US copyright law doesn’t require that!
Which section of the U.S. copyright law?If a human could actually read that many that fast, it wouldn’t magically become illegal just because one person was exceptional.
The debunk is about AI reading the same as humans, not about the legality of "reading". It's that the anthropomorphizing machines won't work.But humans have the right to train LLMs.
Which law? Especially on the copyright of that. Cite a clause in the U.S. copyright law.The learned process is a machine process not of human authorship. It doesn’t qualify for copyright. Fixing something in a fixed medium doesn’t make it subject to copyright. That’s a requirement for copyright, not a proof that something is copyrighted. Machine-generated code is not subject to copyright. The US Copyright Office that you keep citing will tell you this.
You are taking out parts when you make the statement here. First, whether a work is subject to copyright is independent of whether it's a machine that made it or a human made it. A machine-generated stuff (either the model or the LLM output) can be simultaneously uncopyrightable and infringing someone else's copyright. That's the key point of many copyright lawsuits about AI.You can’t cite a law or case law that says that anything stored on a computer is subject to copyright by that fact. That would wipe out the public domain status for any public domain work that gets digitized or originally existed in a digital format.
I will reply these two comments together, because when you are suggesting there are "some" uses that don't require licenses blah-blah-blah, you then made the claim of "you can’t cite a law or case law that says that anything stored on a computer is subject to copyright", misusing the word "any" here. What a hypocrite you are. If I replace your "any" with "every", then the claim is true, but with "any", you instead suggest software code is not copyrightable, and then what the fuck would many lawsuits about software copyright are about?Are you intentionally misinterpreting my “any” word here?
No, I’m intentionally pointing out that there are some, in fact, there are many uses that don’t require licenses or asking for permission. You’re claiming that all uses require permission.If you were an American citizen, I’d list you. I’ll list myself since I’m not a millionaire. You want someone else? Len Kaminski. Now, what is the great response you were hoarding while waiting for a name? What brilliant reasoning will refute this claim because you can’t fathom the existence of poor people in the US?
I'm not challenging your ability to name any "poor person" according to your definition, I'm challenging your ability to represent the "poor people" class you defined. You cite Len Kaminski, and so I am fucking serious to ask this question, did he support piracy like you do? (I say Len Kaminski, a comic book writer, notable with some Iron Man works. https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/Len_Kaminski ) -
On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use
Explorer09 ( profile ), 12 Jun, 2025 @ 04:05pmBob Smith. There is at least one person in the US named Bob Smith who isn’t worth more than a million dollars. There you go. I named someone.
Which one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Smith_(disambiguation) -
On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use
Explorer09 ( profile ), 12 Jun, 2025 @ 03:59pmI did. Not just one "novel," but many different books. My classmates did too. Your ignorance of the US education system is revealed again. Except they actually do. This is the weirdest claim. Are you a writer? Have you never learned about composition from reading written material? How did you learn to write English? You definitely read copyrighted content while learning to read English. You’re getting into Terop-level of absurd claims here. Dictionaries and textbooks are copyrighted content! Holy shit, you’re an idiot! Your ignorance is wild. It’s all over the place.
Three pieces of bullshit together. Firstly, there are public domain books. Secondly, AI "reads" "millions" of books while no human could have that time to read that many. Thirdly, you cannot legally justify that AI has the right to "learn" even when it can learn like humans.It stores what it learned through noising and denoising processes.
Emphasis added. Since you claim "what it learned" can be "stored". "What it learned" is fixed in a tangible medium and such is subject to copyright! You can't win.The model contains a process, not an object.
Stored process. Since all computers in our world are stored-program computers, the "process" itself you are referring to is subject to copyright.I’m claiming you’re arguing in favor of unethical media companies who can’t be as wealthy as they are without exploiting poor workers and creators.
Dismissed again because you failed to list any example of "poor worker or creator".But the only example you can provide is legally available for free example! And it’s a terrible example because it’s a blurry failed reproduction from a model nobody actually uses after the researchers wasted millions of attempts and electricity and time to find something vaguely resembling the targeted image just to make the argument that it’s sorta maybe might could be possible.
Well, since there is a news that Disney and Universal are suing Midjourney just a day ago, why not read their complaint for such illegal examples? Here you are: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/disney-ai-lawsuit.pdfThere is no right under copyright law for a copyright holder to demand a license for exempted acts, including fair use, but also those that fall under the TEACH Act, which I’m quite certain you’re completely ignorant of, as well as those listed under 17 U.S. Code § 110. For example, “…the following are not infringements of copyright:…performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work or of a dramatico-musical work of a religious nature, or display of a work, in the course of services at a place of worship or other religious assembly;” So as a copyright holder, you can’t demand a church license your copyrighted content for them to be able to legally perform or display the work during a church service.
First, your cited section 110 doesn't cover anything about AI. Second, even your cited example (§110(3)) is flawed, because the limit is on "nondramatic" literary or musical works, or dramatico-musical work "of a religious nature" only. I still have exclusive rights if my works are "drama" and "non-religious".
Are you intentionally misinterpreting my "any" word here?Because people other than the copyright holder cannot legally use copyrighted content for any purpose.
They can legally use copyrighted content for many purposes that don’t require licenses or asking for permission. -
On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use
Explorer09 ( profile ), 12 Jun, 2025 @ 02:43pmI didn’t claim to represent them. You’ve lost track of the discussion again. I had stated: “It was to say that you are attacking big corporations but hurting innocent independent non-profits, researchers, students, and poor individuals. That’s the whole point here.” To which you responded: “Please name an “innocent independent non-profit, researcher, student, or poor individual” you are talking about.
Yes! Name someone who is hurt by me. Because it's you that suggest that I hurt someone. You didn't name any person (but rather a class that's improperly defined), so I just disregard this claim. (Or should I say "dismiss"?) Anyway this claim is nothing to talk because you didn't bring evidence. -
On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use
Explorer09 ( profile ), 12 Jun, 2025 @ 02:25pm(Oops. Another accidental comment as signed out where I didn't mean that.)
This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our
privacy policy