I ministri bloccano i signori offerte per far dichiarare le aziende di intelligenza artificiale di contenuto protetto da copyright
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/may/14/uk-ministers-to-block-amendment-requiring-ai-firms-to-declare-use-of-copyrighted-content
di apple_kicks
8 commenti
So I can use copyrighted content to make big anime booba? Quick everyone, give me the biggest companys in the world. I’ll begin with McDonalds.
As i have said before the House of Commons is so rotten and corrupt that that it should be renamed the House of Corporations.
Remember when people call for an end to the House of Lords the ones deciding what replaces them will be the HoC. The beating heart of corruption…
>The amendment, which would have required tech companies to reveal which copyrighted material is used in their models, was tabled by the crossbench peer Beeban Kidron and was passed by 272 votes to 125 in a Lords debate last week.
>There were 297 MPs who voted in favour of removing the amendment, while 168 opposed.
>The data protection minister, Chris Bryant, told MPs that although he recognised that for many in the creative industries this “feels like an apocalyptic moment”, he did not think the transparency amendment delivered the required solutions, and he argued that changes needed to be completed “in the round and not just piecemeal”.
>The sooner the data bill was passed, the quicker he would be able to make progress on updating copyright law, Bryant said.
So the lords wanted an amendment that made AI companies declared the works used.
MPs voted against this and had the amendment removed
And Chris Bryant is of the opinion the amendment doesn’t go far enough and needs the bill passed so he can update copyright laws. This seems sensible if the copyright laws aren’t robust enough to deal with AI. Anything else would be a sticky plaster on a artery. But we will have to see whether Bryant will actually do as he says
It’s really stupid how “but they *need* to be able to steal for it to work!” is used as a justification for AI companies ripping off millions of people’s art, music and words. Imagine you spend ages on a thesis, collecting data, researching, etc, and then at the end I steal the whole thing, and I say *”You have to shut up and let me steal it. I can’t pass my PHD without it!”*
And no, it’s not the same as humans learning from humans. Because human brains don’t work anything like these “AI”-that-aren’t-really-AI, and humans studying things results in learning the technique, not just aping the result.
One item generated by an AI might use a hundred items on the Internet, or maybe a thousand, and once it’s generated the item that might be used in a hundred generated items. Probably very similar to the way human creativity works.
The only way I can see of making this fair is through micro-payments, dividing up a small payment for, say, an image among all the living people whose images went into producing the AI image plus all the AI images that contributed. If you publish an image you get, for example, a cent for every thousand uses.
A rare blow against rent-seeking in the UK economy?
Depressing, but wholly expected. AI companies have politicians convinced that AI is everything and the future and any country that dares cross them will be behind and impoverished. So the UK obviously doesn’t want to challenge them.
The joke, of course, is that the AI industry is full of conmen who inflate what it is capable of just to increase their own profits and power.
Remember ladies and gentlemen, it’s okay to pirate content if you’re a big AI firm.