AI just raises the level of abstraction and therefore the capabilities of an individual.

I do admit there are many quite informed and technically capable professional musicians but I doubt they'd support a law like this.

In four years there will be yet another president. Probably even from a different party the way things are going. They know the system swings back and forth like that. These people have been working that system for over a hundred years now.

How do you think they got d@mn near a century IP protection on a fricken mouse? Who’s in power doesn’t matter to these people.

Again, I think we should require companies to get the user to actively give their consent to these things. Platforms are free to lock or terminate accounts that don't, but they shouldn't be allowed to steal content because someone didn't read an e-mail.

In other words, now that people have had a taste of it and know what they're actually consenting to, companies should have to get renewed consent (positive consent, that is) instead of relying on "you agreed to this before it was even a real thing".

It kind of comes down to the you can't put a "you sell your soul" clause in the terms and conditions of a coffee subscription service mentality: at what point do you simply say "this is obviously in bad faith" and declare it void rather than just say "it's silly, but you signed it".

And I think there's massive cultural differences regarding where that line is drawn.

We can’t ignore the ethical cost of how AI is being developed - especially when it relies on taking other people’s work without permission. Many of today’s most powerful AI systems were trained on vast datasets filled with human-made content: art, writing, music, code, and more. Much of it was used without consent, credit, or compensation. This isn’t conjecture - it’s been thoroughly documented.

That approach isn’t just legally murky - it’s ethically indefensible. We cannot build the future on a foundation of stolen labor and creativity. Artists, writers, musicians, and other creators deserve both recognition and fair compensation. No matter how impactful the tools become, we cannot accept theft as a business model.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/meta-torrented-o...

Mistral waves hello. They're alive and well, and competing well.

Also, while the AI Act and copyright are handled at the EU level, I always get the impression that anyone talking about a "EU government" simply doesn't understand the EU. If you think Germans or Slovaks are rooting for Mistral just because they're European you'd be wrong - they'd be more accepting of it, maybe, due to higher trust in them respecting privacy and related rights, but that's.

This is super simple to enforce.

For starters, we only really care about the companies developing big commercial AI products, not the people running said models on their home PCs or anything along those lines.

If a company starts offering a new AI model commercially, you simply send someone to audit it and make sure they can provide proof of consent, have their input data, etc.

In most cases, this should be enough. If there's reason to believe an AI company is actually straight up lying to the authorities, you simply have them re-train their model in a controlled environment.

Oh and no, you don't need cryptographically secure random numbers for AI training and/or operation, so you can easily just save your random seeds along with the input data for perfectly reproducible results.

This isn't an enforcement problem, it's a lobbying problem. Lawmakers are convinced that AI will solve their problems for them when reality is that it's still mostly speculation on someone at some point finding a way to make it profitable.

In reality, training and even running AI is still way too expensive to the companies selling them, even without considering the long-term economic impact of the harmful ways they are trained (artists contribute to GDP directly, open source projects do so indirectly, and free services like wikipedia are an important part of modern society; AI is causing massive costs to all of these)

That's a funny example since broadcasters have to pay a fee to say "The Super Bowl" in the first place. If they don't, they have to use some euphemism like "the big game."

The answer is definitely no. You cannot use something that you don't have a license for unless it belongs to you.

So in practice, no, it shouldn't. Not because that information itself is bad, but because it probably isn't limited to just that answer.

In summary, I think it is definitely a problem when:

1. The model is trained on a certain type of intellectual property 2. The model is then asked to produce content of the same type 3. The authors of the training data did not consent

And slightly less so, but still questionable when instead:

2. The IP becomes an integral part of the new product

which, arguably, is the case for any and all AI training data; individually you could take any of them out and not much would happen, but remove them all and the entire product is gone.

Just because copyright was made with good intentions does not mean it's actually helping. It's pretty clear that copyright is used almost entirely to hoard wealth.

That's not really different from what I said. "What society values" is what people spend money on, and that money is used to influence policy.

> Or courts will have to decide we know longer value music, art, literature, etc. made by humans -- seems like a long shot to me.

The courts only interpret the law and it's pretty clear to me the law is going to change.

If you shout something in public, someone might hear you. If you shout in a locked house they won't hear you unless they break in.

If you post something publicly on the internet, then people can look at it. If you post something privately on the internet, people have to agree to your terms to view it.

That's it, that's the logic the government uses to allow website scraping.

Not when it comes to music. It is clear when you copy a song verbatim, but when the song is similar to an older song it gets much more complicated. With all the different components: lyrics, melody, chord progression, etc. The Ed Sheeran case taught us that.

Then please bear with me and extend the comparison just a tiny bit.

Replace the AI with an advanced species from Mars. Or even better yet an augmented human ... a trans-human if you will.

Both the martian have kids, families, feelings, etc... AND both can absorb the entire internet in , say , a week or two. They are musicians and create new music from their internet experience.

Does their music belong to them?

Do they have to pay rights to all the authors they listened to so far on the internet?

And finally ... what is the difference between my martian and a human today?

But how are we going to have the trans-humans required to be able to keep humanity's existence after AGI takes control of the world!

Don't take this too seriously... ;)

Humans have hit a hard wall of intelligence limitation for a long time now.

AIs, on the other hand, are just beginning.