Granted, Readium LCP[0] may be one of the less odious DRM solutions out there for eBook contents, however it's still DRM. Handcuffs are still handcuffs regardless of how comfortably they fit.
DRM is in my view is too often used as a cudgel to mandate hardware and software level restrictions that take away the control of our own computing devices and environments. I personally hold that intellectual property isn't property, and is increasingly becoming a net negative to humanity as a whole. In the case of this article, there is an ominous threat of legal action against the disclosure of the author's work, potentially stifling the speech of a fellow hacker.
While I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of creatives, and their need to eat, I feel like the pendulum has swung so far to the interests of the copyright holders and away from the needs of the public that the bargain is no longer one I support.
Because of this stance, I find myself uncomfortably on the side of AI bros like Sam Altman who argue for the expansion of the fair use doctrine. I see AI as an accelerant in the erosion of IP's relevance and enforceability. With AI being able to crank out derivative works at scale, it blurs the lines between infringement and transformation. My hope is that the flood of such content makes enforcement impractical, and that it will further demonstrate that the IP emperor is naked.
Exactly. OpenAI and altman would be very happy to say that intelectual property does not apply to them but then enforce that law when they talk about their own intelectual property being used without their consent.
> I find myself uncomfortably on the side of AI bros like Sam Altman who argue for the expansion of the fair use doctrine
Why? Are you training LLMs?
I highly doubt they'll fight a pro-consumer fight completely incidental to their objectives (if not detracting: don't need to buy the source textbook if you can ask ChatGPT about its contents as soon as it's released).
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Anything done to strengthen fair use is in my opinion a positive outcome. Happy to see copyright holders go toe-to-toe against a bully their own size. If both OpenAI and entrenched IP interests get bloodied in this fight, it's a win-win.
Contrary to this popular saying, real world friendship/enmity is not an anti-transitive relation.
I would expect most AI companies to be more than happy to throw consumers under the bus if it affords them a carve-out serving their own narrow interests.
"So, yeronner, I think you will agree that I was well within my rights to share a torrent of the new Batman movie, not for people to watch but so they could train their LLMS on it."
DRM is in my view is too often used as a cudgel to mandate hardware and software level restrictions that take away the control of our own computing devices and environments. I personally hold that intellectual property isn't property, and is increasingly becoming a net negative to humanity as a whole. In the case of this article, there is an ominous threat of legal action against the disclosure of the author's work, potentially stifling the speech of a fellow hacker.
While I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of creatives, and their need to eat, I feel like the pendulum has swung so far to the interests of the copyright holders and away from the needs of the public that the bargain is no longer one I support.
Because of this stance, I find myself uncomfortably on the side of AI bros like Sam Altman who argue for the expansion of the fair use doctrine. I see AI as an accelerant in the erosion of IP's relevance and enforceability. With AI being able to crank out derivative works at scale, it blurs the lines between infringement and transformation. My hope is that the flood of such content makes enforcement impractical, and that it will further demonstrate that the IP emperor is naked.
[0]: https://www.edrlab.org/projects/readium-lcp/