"removal of known blockers to the adoption of AI tools, including outdated and lengthy accreditation processes, restrictive testing authorities ..."

After all, you don't have to prove it actually works, all we need is for you to adopt it.

And then sell it back to you...

Yes because paying for stuff is economically unfeasible...

So let me just pirate all software, get all music from Napster (ok, that's no longer a thing, isn't it?) because actually buying stuff is economically unfeasible for me.

You omit mentioning that the stuff people wish to 'steal' is sold at a price arbitrarily determined by the vendor. This despite digital 'content' lacking intrinsic scarcity, and anyway, lying around on the Internet for anyone with nous to discover and copy.

Analogy with genuine 'theft' of tangible objects breaks down immediately. You may refuse to sell someone your Rembrandt, this regardless of the price offered. If someone steals the painting, you are derived of its use as an ornament. Only one person at a time can possess it.

Suppose the thief is a kindly soul and returns the Rembrandt to you. Further, imagine the thief possesses technology enabling manufacture of perfect copies of a painting; copies indistinguishable by all known physical and chemical tests. The thief distributes copies among his acquaintances. You have lost nothing other than indisputable evidence of your painting's provenance.

It should be obvious where this leads.

> Yes because paying for stuff is economically unfeasible...

Running an ad blocker?

Just sayin'.

Yes, because my computing resources are mine. I do not allow just anybody to run their software on my machine. Just sayin' And I do pay for subscriptions to select content.

But the computing resources necessary to create and deliver the content, as well as the support staff, and the talent aren't yours, are they?

Don't content creators need to get paid?

Of course, if you restrict your viewing and use to entirely to paid subscriptions then you're off the hook.

Renewed your subscription to The Register yet?

My choice to remove some of the content before I read it is not the same as expecting to receive free copies of anything I like. For similar reasons, it is allowed if sites choose to detect my use of an ad blocker and refuse to send me the page. I won't be happy, but they can do it. My use of an ad blocker is also directly related to the advertising frequently being malicious in a way that harms me and the site on which the ads appear. These are not the same, and the argument is frequently misused by two groups of people, those who want to treat tracking as legally binding even when it may itself break the law, and people who wish all copyright infringement to be legal, to defend their incorrect points.

The "Dispossesion Cycle" (copyright Zuboff) "a new economic order that claims human experience as free raw material for hidden commercial practices of extraction, prediction, and sales", "“an expropriation of critical human rights that is best understood as a coup from above: an overthrow of the people’s sovereignty.”" (The Age of Surveillance Capitalism).

EU instead of tariffs on bourbn whiskey or large, stupid motorcycles for a few fanatics, should hit hard exactly here - forbidding US companies to take advantage of EU data.

And OpenAI should learn that US laws are valid in US only. USA can't make laws abroad.

>And OpenAI should learn that US laws are valid in US only. USA can't make laws abroad.

Plenty more room for 51st state......

The USA has its Marines.

How may the EU prevent people in the USA from harvesting whatever they want from the Internet?

By enforcing copyright, GDPR, Digital Act, antitrust, and fining heavily those who break the rules?

OpenAI should also learn that what they're doing isn't legal in the US either. Fair use has limited allowed uses. Taking the entire content for commercial purposes isn't one of them.

All my lies and bullshit are already Public Domain so OpenAI are free to take them and use them.

I expect they already have.

You are causing me cognitive dissonance. I'll upvote up I don't like it since you've also polluted my own knowledge of the world.

They obviously believe that they've got a useful idiot in the White House now, and can realise their greediest dreams of plunder by appealing to his disdain for the rest of the world. It could however result in the complete breakdown of the entire international copyright system, which other US companies might want to consider before their intellectual property gets nicked in retaliation.

I think I will start to ignore copyright on any US-made software. That's what EU should rule, that copyright on US software is void and everybody is free to use them as they like without paying a dime, and no legal action can be taken against them. Let's see how one of the biggest investor in OpenAI takes that...

" by appealing to his disdain for the rest of the world "

They might try, but the rest of the world has noticed. Some are moving to sideline their dependence on the US, others are waiting to move into the spaces left in their absence. Either way, I can't help but feel that the second Trump presidency will go down as the biggest self-own in America's ~250 years of being.

Which is a long winded way of saying that in time the response from the rest of the world may well be "go whistle".

We would also like to abolish the patent office and all forms of currency because some flavor of the month tech firm says so.

The patent office? Excellent.

There are other ways for giving credit for invention. Also, just think of the number of lawyers to dispatch for useful labour, such as digging ditches.

Patents, explicitly so in the US, are not applied for and granted in order to gain or give "credit". The time-limited patent monopoly is quid pro quo , the quo being full disclosure of the invention in the patent. This promotes the progress of technology, which is what the patent-granting State is interested in.

The fact that you think patents' only value is assigning credit speaks volumes for why you're constantly making bad points about patents and copyright. Both exist to make it possible for someone to do the substantial work behind them and benefit from having done so, enabling people who don't have independent wealth to do this. Until you recognize that, you're never going to prove why they're bad or suggest improvements. Both systems have a lot of downsides, but while you continue to campaign for them to be shut down and worry only about credit, you will always be arguing against something you don't understand and making this obvious to most of those you're trying to convince.

Funny, one side of corporate America has used copyright laws to maintain hegemony and crush innovation. Now another corporate American is wanting to bypass copyright laws saying it crushes innovation. I suppose this guy will copyright the stolen copyright material though. I feel they make it up as they go along.

Think of the bosses though, if they have to abide by laws then they'd be out of a job, then where would we be? We know where they'd be, jobless or in prison, but where would we be?

" I suppose this guy will copyright the stolen copyright material though. "

Isn't that why all the butthurt about DeepSeek apparently training itself off ChatGPT?

" I feel they make it up as they go along. "

All your base are belong to us.

Without delay all AI output should be public domain. OpenAI will get paid through their account subscriptions, that's enough.

AI output already cannot be copyrighted. And any training done on that data is adding something "orginal" - according to OpenAI et al.

In general the US economy is getting strangled to death by troll-booths on every road.

Welcome to the new Wild West.! Grab as much as you can, to hell with the law, stake your claim, then mine and exploit the hell out of it. MAGA!

After all, what value is an ally if you can't exert control over it?

See, you got to check what you feed to your child. If you feed it every crap you find you will only get crap.

I hold no brief for any of the AI production companies. However, should US AI developers be constrained to exist in the pretty walled garden provided by copyright, the fruit on their vines shall wither. The technology could thrive elsewhere. Regardless of whether AI lives up fully to the expectations of entrepreneurs, some aspects of its use evidently shall: one such is as an educational and research tool offering an annotated collection of human culture together with means to service enquiries by drawing from across literature databases; copies of this tool, some perhaps devoted to highly specific domains, can sit on individual computational devices, on more powerful institutional computers, and in 'the cloud'. Anyone imagining AI to be containable within the traditional commercial environment is deluded.

Arising from this is an irony. For instance, take Microsoft (MS), which is in the AI game. It would be difficult for MS to claim high moral ground when condemning 'free loaders' who copy MS software and use it without a licence. Private individuals do this with no prospect of comeback, could not corporate entities independent of MS demand greater 'fair use' of MS products?

Gradually, but at quickening pace, the intellectually stultifying atmosphere arising from the specious concept of 'intellectual property' is being cleansed by multiple individual acts of disobedience to outmoded law. There is a shift in trade from selling digital end-products (on a rigged monopolist market) to seeking patronage for use of skills (individual, and cooperative) in making (and for distributing with added value to zero) digital artefacts. A reckoning awaits for avaricious folk with a deep sense of 'entitlement'. The irony is compounded by the USA, the arch-rentier nation, housing the most powerful of disobedient entities.

You mean patronage like two thousands years ago, when skilled people had to lick feet of oligarchs to sell them their works, at a price the oligarchs fixed? No, thank you. That's not freedom. It's serfdom.

"Paying a truly fair fee to all authors – whose copyrighted content has already been or will be used to train powerful LLM models that are eventually aimed at competing with those authors – will probably be economically unviable," he claimed, as AI vendors "will never make profits."

Awe boo hoo, the poor AI companies won't be able to make a profit unless they steal everyones copyright works. That just shows the business model is broken then.

Is ChatGPT that far removed from services such as Megaupload and Napster which also relied on other peoples IP to make money without compensating them?

...I should be allowed to rob banks, otherwise how am I allowed to profit?

I've never come across a bunch of people more deserving of being put up against a wall and shot than this lot.

Bring on the revolution.

Checks notes. It's not April.

Checks calendar. No, definitely not April.

Checks internet for todays date. It's the middle of March. Which means it's not April or the beginning of said month.

What in the actual Shatners Bassoon is this?

I'm off to LLM some films. I mean if copyright is no more then that shouldn't be a problem right?

In all seriousness I get this horrible feeling that this AI push is to get people off the internet and to a system where you search and the AI gives you the answer rather than reading websites for convenience. That way the powers that be have yet more control over opinions and thought.

Oh, the creep is back...