News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:We can't all use AI. Someone has to generate the training... by franciscop on Wednesday March 15, 2023 @06:42PM (#35175720)
Oh the bit I found seemed biased is this:

> "He should be able to at least provide for his kids college after his death if his IP still has value in the marketplace."

Why should he, besides because that's a good desire for a family member? If it was a 3rd party wanting this, usually we'd call that rent-seeking behavior and it's usually seen negatively.

> But the creative idea is still theirs

Why is this (besides copyright law ofc)? The carpenter doesn't forbid me from creating a similar chair of him, and if we are talking about a painting and e.g. I was learning I could definitely copy it for learning purposes and everyone would be fine with that, so at which point should it "not be okay" to copy it? To lend to a friend in private? Can I share (in person, no copies) to a group of friends? I bought a painting, can I print it on a t-shirt for myself? What I can do after I purchase a copy of the idea in private should not be up to the author IMHO, and that line is often very blurry.

Re:We can't all use AI. Someone has to generate the training... by 0dayz on Friday March 17, 2023 @09:28AM (#35196809)
It's very simple.

Technically as long as you don't sell a product that is a copy, you are "fine" to have said product.

However if you do sell it, it would incentivize a parasitic market.

Something you see sometimes in open source software, esp with IaaS.