Technology

If abiding to the law destroys your business then you are a criminal. Simple as.

Then it should die.

This is like saying "if we had to ask for consent, the human race would die." Fucking creepy, rapist vibes.

Cool, so I'll get started on building an automated business that sells cheap access to all the music, movies and shows on the streaming services.

Getting consent for each title would basically kill my business and would be implausible, so I'll just assume it's ok.

If a business cannot survive without breaking the law, then it is not a business but a criminal organisation.

If your industry can't exist without theft then your industry doesn't deserve to exist, pretty simple.

I have a proposition. Raid them with police and search their computers for stolen data like you would do with your citizens.

oh noes

Look, these goddamn assholes have got in their head that they have a right to profit.

NOBODY HAS A RIGHT TO PROFIT.

You have a right to try to create a profit and there are rules to that. You're gonna lose your billions in investment if you can't plaigerize content?....fuck you, your loss, and you shoulda fucking known better when the idea was presented to you.

Assholes

If asking for permission is going to kill an industry, then that industry should be killed.

If being declined concent is going to kill your industry then maybe your industry deserved to die.

Fucking rapist mentaility right there.

I'm ok with "ai" dying

Good, then it should die

If I ran the zoo, then any AI that trained on intellectual property as if it were public domain would automatically become public domain itself.

Same thing for most of billionaires' income sources.

"Respecting [insert human right] would kill [insert industry]."

So I can steal all their shit too, right? It would "Implausible" for me to do so.

The audacity... If our technology isn't allowed to break the law, it will fail. Therefore we should change the law.

if something so simple can kill an entire industry, that industry should not exist.

Good, I think it should be killed.

Kill the AI industry? Sweet. As an artist I do not consent.

correction: will kill people's attempts to make billions out of other people's art. Otherwise inquisitive people will continue to do non-profit research this way or another.

Actually here is a question to you: Would you be ok if the law stated you don't need permission if it is non-profit and open source? Yea I thought so bitch.

If you're giving me the choice of killing the AI industry or artists it doesn't seem like a hard decision. Am I missing something?

Good.

So they want to be able to benifit from free art while the rest of us have to pay to access it? Seems fair. /s

Oh, so it'd be ok to get movies, pictures, books, etc. without asking the right owners for us too? GREAT.

Fuck Nick Clegg. Fuck that guy into the fucking sun.

Back in 2010 he managed to surf a wave of genuine optimism from young British voters who wanted something less shit, and found himself in a position where he could have brought about some genuine change for the better.

Instead that cunt hitched his wagon to the fucking Tories, who straight away announced an increase to university tuition fees. And who then went on to spend 15 years raping and pillaging the country like only fucking Tories can.

So yeah, fuck Nick Clegg.

Bank robbers say laws against bank robbery will kill bank robbery.

Good.

And not asking for it will kill whatever remains of the creative industries.

What do you want, a few years of ai slop followed by the more or less rapid decline of the internet (as it is overwhelmed with model collapse creative works and untrustable content) that will afford the likes of Clegg (in his role of 'meta' executive) a huge payout, or creative people having any hope of a sustained ability to make a living?

I know what I would prefer and I also know what is most likely going to happen. This is the result of decades of neo-liberal fossil-fuel-powered capitalism.

Pure entitlement mindset.

If your business is not able to stay afloat while providing fair compensation to those whose labor is used, whether employee, co-owner, or third-party, you are not entitled to keep running it. Society doesn't have a duty to prop up wealthy thieves.

Honestly not a bad thing, I mean you're not going to OpenSource your AI so this is a good alternative

So… what’s the down side to this bill?

The AI industry not asking artists for permission will kill the art industry.

Using the same logic, it is "implausible" that we would not take money from those who have it and give it to the sheer volume of people who need it.

Oh. Suddenly it doesn't work that way. Huh. Funny how that is.

Sounds like a plan!

Is this going in for a vote? Where do I vote?

If an industry can't survive without resorting to copyright theft then maybe it's not a viable business.

Imagine the business that could exist if only they didn't have to pay copyright holders. What makes the AI industry any different or more special?

Can't they just write an 'AI' to ask an artist for permission then? I'll bet they can. It's just that most artists will say no unless they get paid. So, their business model, based on theft, is not sustainable. Got it.

My permission costs $2.50 for every time AI reads my text or uses it in the background. Thank you! Come again!