The record industry has filed a list of thousands of songs it believes have been scraped without permission, and has recreated versions of famous songs using Udio and Suno.
My take is that you can train AI on whatever you want for research purposes, but if you brazenly distribute models trained on other people’s content, you should be liable for theft, especially if you are profiting off of it.
Just because AI has so much potential doesn’t mean we should be reckless and abusive with it. Just because we can build a plagiarism machine capable of reproducing facsimiles of humanity doesn’t mean that how we are building that is ethical or legal.
Copyright infringement becomes theft when you make money off of someone else’s work, which is the goal of every one of these AI companies. I 100% mean theft.
My take is that you can train AI on whatever you want for research purposes, but if you brazenly distribute models trained on other people’s content, you should be liable for theft, especially if you are profiting off of it.
Just because AI has so much potential doesn’t mean we should be reckless and abusive with it. Just because we can build a plagiarism machine capable of reproducing facsimiles of humanity doesn’t mean that how we are building that is ethical or legal.
That’s not what theft is. I think you mean copyright infringement.
Copyright infringement becomes theft when you make money off of someone else’s work, which is the goal of every one of these AI companies. I 100% mean theft.
Can you link to a single case where someone has been charged with theft for making money off something they’ve copied?
Or are you using some definition of the word theft that’s different from the legal definition?