People keep saying that, all the while ignoring that this bill is granting rights to small time creators to decide if they want their works used for machine learning.
Yes, this gives a head start to companies that have been abusing the system while it was still allowed. But stopping that behaviour too late is still better than not stopping it at all.
What are you basing that on?
Content owners, including broadcasters, artists, and newspapers, could sue companies they believe used their materials without permission or tampered with authentication markers.
Doesn't say anything about the right just applying to giant tech companies, it specifically mentions artists as part of the protected content owners.
I'm sure that's how it works in your ideal world or imaginationland. But you do realise there's like no legal basis for this in the real world, right? Just because you downloaded an Iron man torrent, does not mean you own part of the MCU.
Hopefully the next step: force every platform that deals in user generated content to give users the choice to exploit that content for a fraction of the profit, or to exclude their content from processing.
It's amazing how many people don't realize that they themselves also hold copyright over their content, and that laws like these protect them as well.
In the same way that the law doesn't prevent you from murdering someone, but just makes it illegal to do so.
I'm the opposite, actually. I like generative AI. But as a creator who shares his work with the public for their (non-commercial) enjoyment, I am not okay with a billionaire industry training their models on my content without my permission, and then use those models as a money machine.
Because even when some of the water has gotten out, you still go plug the dam.
The best moment was earlier. The second best moment is now.
Seeing as laws can't be applied retroactively, what would have been the alternative?
Interesting summary, although not really an unexpected result.
Side note: I like your username.
Nope, that's not what I'm arguing at all. I was just pointing out how the commenter above me was misrepresenting the judges reasoning.
Obviously people should get angry over this. But I do not have enough faith in social media to believe that anger will find a healthy outlet if left unmanaged.
But if you are asking for my opinion - I think the woman should be allowed to tell her story, as long as she doesn't encourage naming the perpetrators or does so herself. And, given the circumstances / if possible, disable public comments and reposting to discourage further harassment.
You should change your name to afraid_of_reality. Have fun in your dream world, I'm out.