this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2026
469 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
87712 readers
3018 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They’re not going to walk back copyright law so I’ll take these rapacious AI companies being held a little closer to the same standard that we are.
Why not? These laws exist the make the rich more money; if the interests of the rich people trying to make money change it's very possible for the law to change to match that.
Because there’s more money to be made in keeping it than walking it back. I could see them making some kind of shitty carve out for the AI companies that they have to pay into I guess but nothing that would benefit the average person.
This isn't a question of "walking it back", though. There was never anything in copyright law that prohibited analyzing a copyrighted work before. This is an attempt to extend it.
Meta literally torrented 82TB of pirated material off anna’s archive and similar sources they’re not just “analyzing” things they paid for. Not to mention the various terms of use stating that content can’t be used to train off of that they violate as they scrape the whole web.
And so, exactly as I predicted, we've got commenters coming out to defend the poor innocent copyright cartels against those awful people pirating their stuff. Violating sacred EULAs, even, what monsters.
If I could get rid of both of them I would but I can’t so I don’t think it’s unreasonable have them go after the companies burning the planet to make the worst slop imaginable instead of people writing switch emulators or whatever. “Violating those sacred EULAs” causes the very site I’m posting this from to fight a constant game of cat and mouse with the bots trying to scrape it.
That's not how this works though, hoping the law to just punishes people you don't like without regard for what they are being punished for is madness.
If Anthropic lose this they'll shrug pay a fee to licence things out of the untold billions they have available to them from credulous investors, and everyone else will have lost the right to do whatever they want with a copyrighted work without the publisher's permission. That people who consider themselves progressive think that's a win boggles my mind.
We already don’t have the right to do whatever we want with a copyrighted work without the publishers permission.
That's what the copyright cartels want you to believe, sure.
It's not the case. Rooting for it to become the case is repellent.