So which is it? Should people (and AI companies) be prosecuted for copyright violations or should people (and AI companies) not be prosecuted for copyright violations?
If you want equal application of those laws, that is.
It doesn’t matter. The law needs to pick one and be consistent.
If you want my personal opinion, I’ve been against a lot of copyright law most of my life, but I’m beginning to rethink that with this so called AI. I think we need strong protections against commercial infringement while maintaining strong personal fair use. The details of course are complex.
So which is it? Should people (and AI companies) be prosecuted for copyright violations or should people (and AI companies) not be prosecuted for copyright violations?
If you want equal application of those laws, that is.
It doesn’t matter. The law needs to pick one and be consistent.
If you want my personal opinion, I’ve been against a lot of copyright law most of my life, but I’m beginning to rethink that with this so called AI. I think we need strong protections against commercial infringement while maintaining strong personal fair use. The details of course are complex.
That would essentially be a position in favor of prosecuting Aaron Swartz
No. Aaron did not distribute any of the work, settled in a civil suit and was prosecuted later.
Copyright was not the problem there.
Either one would be better than the current situation. And let’s be real, we aren’t gonna have a say in it anway
People shouldn’t be and companies should, neither should be, both should be, the current situation, in order of decreasing preference.