It's incredibly dumb considering the amount of data it takes to train AI models, and that the process is completely transformative and does not seek to memorize the training data. Their justification: "it's about transparency, fairness and accountability."
That's the next step on the slippery slope (that is never, somehow, a fallacy, they always grab more): People thinking too much about copyrighted content without paying the government their cut!
Not a musician but I remember Penn Gillette of all people arguing with someone about copyright that it's illegal to place a TV in a public place showing his performances. "No, stores can't even turn on an FM radio and play music off the radio. That's against the law!"
He's technically correct, and it's only tangential to this, but it's one of those things that hardened my stance against strict IP law and its defenders. Don't get me started on Metallica.
The copyright aspect is so dumb. If a human being loves Santana and learns to play guitar, is that a copyright violation? Of course not.
It's incredibly dumb considering the amount of data it takes to train AI models, and that the process is completely transformative and does not seek to memorize the training data. Their justification: "it's about transparency, fairness and accountability."
That's the next step on the slippery slope (that is never, somehow, a fallacy, they always grab more): People thinking too much about copyrighted content without paying the government their cut!
With how most musicians act, a lot of them would argue it was and you owe them money.
Not a musician but I remember Penn Gillette of all people arguing with someone about copyright that it's illegal to place a TV in a public place showing his performances. "No, stores can't even turn on an FM radio and play music off the radio. That's against the law!"
He's technically correct, and it's only tangential to this, but it's one of those things that hardened my stance against strict IP law and its defenders. Don't get me started on Metallica.