General_Effort

Das dürften überwiegend Urheberrechtssachen sein. Das geht zwar aus den Daten nicht hervor, aber beim Thema Content Removal kann man sehen, dass das fast ausschließlich Copyright ist. Ich wäre überrascht, wenn das bei diesem Thema deutlich anders ist.

Umgerechnet auf die Bevölkerungszahl steht die Bundesrepublik damit weltweit auf Platz 2 hinter den USA und in Europa auf Platz 1 (850 begehrte Account-Auskünfte pro 100.000 Einwohner). Das sind 57 Prozent der abgefragten Konten in Westeuropa.

Zum Vergleich: Österreich landet auf Platz 22 weltweit mit 136 Bestandsdatenabfragen pro 100.000 Bürgern, die Schweiz auf Platz 15 mit 245 entsprechenden Ersuchen. Deutsche Behörden beantragten so mehr als siebenmal so viele Auskünfte zu Nutzerkonten pro Einwohner wie der weltweite Durchschnitt.

Die Zahlen stammen aus einer jetzt veröffentlichten Auswertung der Transparenzberichte der vier Big-Tech-Konzerne durch den VPN-Anbieter Surfshark unter Einbezug von 190 Ländern.

Wer sich bei der Überschrift dieselben Fragen stellt wie ich...

The copyright industry wants money. So, 4 legs good, 2 legs better. It's depressing to see how easily people are led around by the nose.

Ok, I understand. You don't like them because of their beliefs.

At first, I was confused. Isn't the fact that you believe something the only justification for saying something? I mean, otherwise you'd be lying. But you're saying you disagree with the belief in the first place, right?

But that's unethical!

Copyright is utterly corrupted. Besides, I believe it is corrosive and outright dangerous in the age of the internet. Every time you open a website or a stream or anything, that is copied to your device. In the age of the printing press, it was about what happened in a few "factories"/printing houses. Libraries were fine because they didn't copy, but online libraries do. Now, copyright is about all our communications. Total enforcement would mean total surveillance.

So this is not a defense of copyright. It is simply an explanation.

Building products for sale is what US-copyright is all about. Think about the copyright clause: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Without copyright, everything would be public domain. Everyone would be free to share any book or movie. That makes it hard to make money, to monetize your product, to recoup your investment. Copyright is supposed to be a way to enable that. It's supposed to create an incentive to entertain you. If you have to pay for your entertainment, then someone will come along and entertain you to get your money. Piracy is an attack on that system.

If AI companies have to buy licenses, that would not incentivize much of anything. Licensing curated datasets for AI training would be one thing, but paying for individual books or even Reddit posts makes no sense. It would just make development slower and much more expensive. That makes it an unconstitutional use of copyright.

Well, it's what they believe. What exactly is the problem there? I have never been called a murderer. There just aren't that many vegans around. I don't know in what kind of circles this would be a common occurrence.

Das Bild stellt erkennbar die angebotene Pizza dar (nicht im Bild). So was mit KI hinzukriegen ist wahrscheinlich aufwendiger als schnell eine Pizza aufzubacken.

Für mich sieht das wie zusammenkopiert aus. Der ungleichmäßige Rand kommt vom Ausschneiden, würde ich sagen. So etwas geht mit KI.

Der Schneider sieht wirklich komisch aus. Vielleicht ist der generiert.

Let's engage in a little fantasy. Someone invents a magic machine that is able to duplicate apartments, condos, houses, ... You want to live in New York? You can copy yourself a penthouse overlooking the Central Park for just a few cents. It's magic. You don't need space. It's all in a pocket dimension like the Tardis or whatever. Awesome, right? Of course, not everyone would like that. The owner of that penthouse, for one. Their multi-million dollar investment is suddenly almost worthless. They would certainly demand that you must not copy their property without consent. And so would a lot of people. And what about the poor construction workers, ask the owners of constructions companies? And who will pay to have any new house built?

So in this fantasy story, the government goes and bans the magic copy machine. Taxes are raised to create a big new police bureau to monitor the country and to make sure that no one use such a machine without a license.

That's turned from magical wish fulfillment into a dystopian story. A society that rejects living in a rent-free wonderland but instead chooses to make itself poor. People work to ensure poverty, not to create wealth.

You get that I'm talking about data, information, knowledge. The first magic machine was the printing press. Now we have computers and the Internet.

I'm not talking about a utopian vision here. Facts, scientific theories, mathematical theorems, ... All such is free for all. Inventors can get patents, but only for 20 years and only if they publish them. They can keep their invention secret and take their chances. But if they want a government enforced monopoly, they must publish their inventions so that others may learn from it.

In the US, that's how the Constitution demands it. The copyright clause: [The United States Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Cutting down on Fair Use makes everyone poorer and only a very few, very rich people richer. Have you ever thought about where the money goes if AI training requires a license?

For example, to Reddit, because Reddit has rights to all those posts. So do Facebook and Xitter. Of course, there's also old money, like the NYT or Getty. The NYT has the rights to all their old issue about a century back. If AI training requires a license, they can sell all their old newspapers again. That's pure profit. Do you think they will their employees raises out of the pure goodness of their heart if they win their lawsuits? They have no legal or economics reason to do so. The belief that this would happen is trickle-down economics.

This paperwork is required by EU regulation (Digital Services Act - DSA).

It is theoretically possible to be excepted but I doubt OP has any chance there.

They are a small, harmless minority. Isn't that enough? Maybe it's made worse by the fact that they are perceived as non-violent and effeminate, because of their strong opposition to suffering, even when the victims are helpless, like animals. There is no personal risk in bullying them. It's like the hate for environmental activists, trans-women, or liberals in general. I wouldn't know that vegans aggressively proselytize their life-style if people didn't aggressively tell me so; something that they share with "the gays". Of course, people wouldn't mind if they didn't shove it in their faces all the time. Where have I heard that before?