Even if the customer authorized the transaction? So now all the customers have to pay higher fees to cover for idiots getting scammed. Is the Bank of England going to start refunding people who get scammed out of cash under the mattress?
The left has done more damage you our education system by removing standards and getting rid of separate schools for the smartest students than the right ever could by cutting funding. Most recently in California they got rid of calculus class in high school. Meanwhile we continue to increase spending and are near the highest in the world and our education system is trash https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cmd/education-exp...
Stealing a car deprives the previous owner of the car of possession and use. It is a criminal charge and you will be punished for it regardless of the monetary value of the car. The owner of the car could also sue the thief for financial damages caused by not having the car for a month, which won't be more than the cost of an equivalent rental for a month, so it's not even worth bothering.
Copyright infringement does not deprive the copyright owner of its property and is not criminal. So in this case only the lawsuit part applies. The owner is only entitled to the monetary damages, which is the lost sale. But in this case the sale price was paid to the owner 1 month later, so the only real damages will be the interest the publisher could have earned if they had got their money one month earlier.
Your take on how copyright infringement works only counts for unregistered copyrights. If the copyrighted works are registered with the copyright office statutory damages apply:
> It's not adding to the cultural expression like a parody would.
Says who?
> Is AI contributing to education and/or culture _right now_, or is it trying to make money?
How on earth are those things mutually exclusive? Also, whether or not it's being used to make money is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is copyright infringement.
I can't find anything in there or its linked articles about culture. I do find quite a bit about synthetic performers and digital replicas and making sure that people who do voice acting don't have their performance used to generate material that is done at a discounted rate and doesn't reimburse the performer.
> Protective A.I. guardrails for actors who work in video games remain a point of contention in the Interactive Media Agreement negotiations which have been ongoing from October 2022 until last month’s strike. Other A.I.-related panels Crabtree-Ireland participated in included a U.S. Department of Justice and Stanford University co-hosted event about promoting competition in A.I., as well as a Vanderbilt University summit on music law and generative A.I. SAG-AFTRA Executive Vice President Linda Powell discussed the interactive negotiations and A.I.’s many implications for creatives during her keynote speech at an Art in the Age of A.I. symposium put on by Villa Albertine at the French Embassy.
> She said A.I. represents “a turning point in our culture,” adding, “I think it’s important that we be participants in it and not passengers in it ... We need to make our voices known to the handful of people who are building and profiting off of this brave new world.”
This doesn't indicate that its good or bad, but rather that they want to make sure that people are in control of it and people are compensated for the works that are created from their performance.
But if you did pirate the book, and let's say it cost $50, and then you used it to write a play based on that book and made $1 million selling that, only the $50 loss to the publisher would be relevant to the lawsuit. The fact that you wrote a non-infringing play based on it and made $1 million would be irrelevant to the case. The publisher would have no claim to it.
But there is the issue of whether there are damages. If my LLM can reproduce 10 random paragraphs of a Harry Potter book, it's obvious that nobody would have otherwise purchased the book if they couldn't read those 10 paragraphs. So there will not be any damages to the publisher and the lawsuit will be tossed. There is a threshold of how much of it needs to be reproduced, and how closely, but it's a subjective standard and not some hard line like if it's > 50%.
> But there is the issue of whether there are damages.
Not if there isn't infringement. Infringement is a question that precedes damages, since "damages" are only those harms that are attributable to the infringement. And infringement is an act, not an object.
If training a general use LLM on books isn't infringement (as this decision holds), then there by definition cannot be damages stemming from it; the amount of the source material that the model file "contains" doesn't matter.
It might matter to whether it is possible for a third party to easily use the model for something that would be infringement on the part of the third party, but that would become a problem for people who use it for infringement, not the model creator, and not for people who simply possess a copy of the model. The model isn't "an infringing object".
Why do profits, and the stock market, continue going up then? I've heard this nonsense about corporate short termism for decades, and the long term just never seems to arrive.
The stock market tracks short term profits; most stock buyers are also short-termers. Profits that could have been had but were not, due to shortsighted decisions, are hard to measure and don't usually make the news. Similar for companies that slowly hollow out, or get killed by newer companies still in their market-building phases before they start turning the screws.
You can just watch it happen. Companies cut quality and ruin their reputation, or shrink from new markets due to fear of cannibalizing themselves, among other ways to sacrifice long term profit. There's a reasonable debate about how predominant it is in the economy, but not about whether it happens.
If I make short term profits off doing the wrong things I have more money to buy up my competition that incurs the cost now. By the time something bad happens there will only be a small bump down on the market.
I don't really buy this since China has industrialized rapidly without much population growth at all. They have built infrastructure like high speed rail that we are unable to build in the US, so I also don't buy the "fully deployed modern infrastructure" line.
Yeah but their starting point was different again - they already had the population, and were able to piggy back on technological progress from other countries by borrowing or stealing it. The other thing they have is an authoritarian government; a country can achieve a lot in a short time when it can freely sideline the concerns and needs of its citizens.
I'm not a China defender, but sidelining the concerns and needs of its citizens isn't why China is able to do things like high speed rail or build high density infrastructure in general. Lots there view having their property taken by the government and relocated as a good thing, because it almost always happens way above market rates. There are exceptions, of course, but my impression is that it is not the norm. Feel free to correct me. This isn't a defense of China in general, but it is totally possible to have good public transit in the United States.
And mind you that China isn't unique in bootstrapping its industrial revolution by mass theft of IP. If I were you, I'd look into the stunts us Americans pulled during our industrialization. The sad fact of the matter is that the government of this country no longer works for its own people, and that's why so many things are far below par. For many things, we _could_, but simply _don't_.
In my personal experience with in-laws in China you're correct (got fully compensated + given a nicer house). Another family, when they were laid off from their government jobs, were given the option of cash or office space and storage for like 30yrs to run their own business...
Nothing really to disagree with here tbh; I didn't mean to say that authoritarianism was the reason for everything they've achieved, but rather that it greases the wheels so to speak.
I was really just responding to the discussion that ensued when an earlier commenter said that poor regulation was not the reason the US modernised rapidly but rather population growth and post war economics, and another responded with China as a counter example to that, my point being that China's situation was much different than the US so it's not really a useful comparison.
I always liked the bit where they often compensate folks not directly financially but rather with a generous share in what they are building. Eg. the building containing your one bedroom apartment gets torn down by developers and as compensation they offer you a three bedroom apartment in the new building.
Definitely plays an interesting role in combating/moderating NIMBYism.
China went from a few tens of millions of modern people to over a billion modern people. Look at it that way. They weren’t new people but they were economically speaking.
The US is all modern people with little population growth. We have no giant wave of latent demand.
I guess we'll see what the fallout from this attack is, but if there isn't anything major (and that's where my money is) then it would seem that just dropping bunker busters on their nuclear facilities and then going home was actually the best solution all along.
That is pure fantasy. You don’t launch an unprovoked attack and simply go home without any consequences. What we and Israel have done to Iran in recent weeks is akin to 9/11 or Pearl Harbor. Furthermore, if we were legitimately without any other options it is because of our own failure to honor the deal we made in 2018.
You can be assured that there will be a response. What it will be and for how long I don’t know. What I do know is that diplomacy is completely off the table. It’s possible we are dealing with the consequences of this for decades.
