In copyright protection terms the ratio shouldn’t matter. They should pay for all the lost profits from pirating everything they’ve downloaded. Every time someone pirated it should be counted. And every time someone uses the AI trained on the data.
They can become the corporate Jesus of the interwebs, having paid for our sins.
Technically, copyright infringement is committed by the entity making and sending the copy, not the entity receiving it. Leeching could indeed remove liability.
I’m not sure if the courts have cared about that nuance when persecuting the ‘small fish,’ but I bet they would in this ‘big fish’ case.
If the receiving entity then ingests all that copyrighted material into its AI, and the AI sends it piece at a time to other receiving entities, that should be the AI infringing on everything it is copying to make its answers.
In copyright protection terms the ratio shouldn’t matter. They should pay for all the lost profits from pirating everything they’ve downloaded. Every time someone pirated it should be counted. And every time someone uses the AI trained on the data.
They can become the corporate Jesus of the interwebs, having paid for our sins.
Technically, copyright infringement is committed by the entity making and sending the copy, not the entity receiving it. Leeching could indeed remove liability.
I’m not sure if the courts have cared about that nuance when persecuting the ‘small fish,’ but I bet they would in this ‘big fish’ case.
If the receiving entity then ingests all that copyrighted material into its AI, and the AI sends it piece at a time to other receiving entities, that should be the AI infringing on everything it is copying to make its answers.
Yes, yes it should. But that’s a different act than the one being discussed here.
I agree. Still doesn’t hurt to bring it up on appropriate tangents.