Taggart :donor: (@mttaggart)
infosec.town
Japan determines copyright doesn't apply to LLM/ML training data. > On a global scale, Japan’s move adds a twist to the regulation debate. Current discussions have focused on a “rogue nation” scenario where a less developed country might disregard a global framework to gain an advantage. But with Japan, we see a different dynamic. The world’s third-largest economy is saying it won’t hinder AI research and development. Plus, it’s prepared to leverage this new technology to compete directly with the West. I am going to live in the sea. https://www.biia.com/japan-goes-all-in-copyright-doesnt-apply-to-ai-training/

cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/8121669

Taggart (@mttaggart) writes:

Japan determines copyright doesn’t apply to LLM/ML training data.

On a global scale, Japan’s move adds a twist to the regulation debate. Current discussions have focused on a “rogue nation” scenario where a less developed country might disregard a global framework to gain an advantage. But with Japan, we see a different dynamic. The world’s third-largest economy is saying it won’t hinder AI research and development. Plus, it’s prepared to leverage this new technology to compete directly with the West.

I am going to live in the sea.

www.biia.com/japan-goes-all-in-copyright-doesnt-apply-to-ai-training/

    • Camelbeard@lemmy.worldEnglish
      265·
      10 months ago

      If you read a book you can talk about it, quote it, draw characters from that book, write your own ending, etc.

      Isn’t that kind of the same? Let’s say some day we have an AI with near human intelligence, why can’t the AI be trained on copyright works, just like humans, all our school books are copyrighted works?

        • Camelbeard@lemmy.worldEnglish
          82·
          10 months ago

          So if AI companies pay for a book or music (like a consumer) it’s no problem? Because I don’t think this is about paying for content, it’s that content holders refuse to work with AI companies.

          • Mustard@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
            71·
            10 months ago

            Unironically yes, if AI companies paid for training data everyone would be much happier.

            I sincerely doubt that NOBODY is willing to sell data to them. It’s far more likely that they have not offered anyone a fair price yet, which makes sense because that would set a precedent.

            Even then, if people don’t want to sell them their copyrighted work then tough. You can’t compel people to take customers they don’t want.

            • Armok: God of Blood@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
              32·
              10 months ago

              So if I go on a free website that hosts art (ArtStation, DeviantArt, etc.) and get training data that I could have legally accessed for free…

              • Mustard@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
                14·
                10 months ago

                They’ve all already done that haha. You could argue that a human has only one life in which to remix that art but an AI is theoretically immortal, so it’s a different category of customer.

                At any rate, it’s clear that AI should not have free access to copyrighted works, like news articles, academic papers, stock images, and various kinds of non deviantart art.

      • Euphoma@lemmy.mlEnglish
        35·
        10 months ago

        I’m pretty sure its technically copyright infringement to draw the characters (if they have a design in the book in images) or write fanfic, but no one cares. The only fan stuff that actually get taken down is nintendo fan games and in the past, videos on nintendo games without permission.

    • lloram239@feddit.deEnglish
      1·
      10 months ago

      You can. Distributing copies is illegal, not downloading them. That’s why torrents are bad and streaming sites are fine. (Some exceptions might apply depending on your country).