Those claiming AI training on copyrighted works is “theft” misunderstand key aspects of copyright law and AI technology. Copyright protects specific expressions of ideas, not the ideas themselves. When AI systems ingest copyrighted works, they’re extracting general patterns and concepts - the “Bob Dylan-ness” or “Hemingway-ness” - not copying specific text or images.
This process is akin to how humans learn by reading widely and absorbing styles and techniques, rather than memorizing and reproducing exact passages. The AI discards the original text, keeping only abstract representations in “vector space”. When generating new content, the AI isn’t recreating copyrighted works, but producing new expressions inspired by the concepts it’s learned.
This is fundamentally different from copying a book or song. It’s more like the long-standing artistic tradition of being influenced by others’ work. The law has always recognized that ideas themselves can’t be owned - only particular expressions of them.
Moreover, there’s precedent for this kind of use being considered “transformative” and thus fair use. The Google Books project, which scanned millions of books to create a searchable index, was ruled legal despite protests from authors and publishers. AI training is arguably even more transformative.
While it’s understandable that creators feel uneasy about this new technology, labeling it “theft” is both legally and technically inaccurate. We may need new ways to support and compensate creators in the AI age, but that doesn’t make the current use of copyrighted works for AI training illegal or unethical.
For those interested, this argument is nicely laid out by Damien Riehl in FLOSS Weekly episode 744. https://twit.tv/shows/floss-weekly/episodes/744
I never fully figured out how the people who are against AI companies using copyrighted content on the training data fit that in with their general attitude towards online piracy. Seems contradictory to be against one but not another.
Is the pirate valued at $100,000,000,000? Will the pirate ever make enough of a dent to be considered a rounding error in a $100bn valuation? Is the pirate even attempting to turn a profit?
If the training data was for personal consumption, knock yourself out. When you try to say you’re worth billions but can’t afford to pay for the material? Fuck all the way off. I’m sure fucknuts at the top of this is gonna get a fat fucking pay day, so scrape a few fucking zeros off their quartly bonus and pay the people actually making the fucking content you are ABSOLUTELY going to turn around and try to make a profit off of.
Don’t forget that the pirates usually don’t say “art should have been just a weekend hobby, not a profession”.
I don’t see how this addresses my question. Just because someone is causing bigger harm it doesn’t justify causing a little harm. Stealing a lollipop is less bad than stealing a car but it’s still both stealing. AI companies can afford paying for the material just like online pirate can afford paying for the movie.
Because the small thief in this example is not making money from the theft
No, but they’re saving money which is effectively the same thing. There’s no practical difference between earning 50 bucks and getting a 50 buck discount.
That’s not quite true, though, is it?
$50 earned is yours to spend on anything. A $50 discount is offered by a vendor to entice you to spend enough of your money on them to make the discount worthwhile.
Pirates don’t pirate because they’re trying to save money on something they would have bought otherwise… typically they pirate because the amount they consume would bankrupt them if they purchased it through legitimate means, so they would never have been a paying customer in the first place.
So, if they wouldn’t have bought it anyway, and they’re not reselling it, did they really harm the vendor? Whether they pirated it or not, it wouldn’t affect the vendor either way.
That’s not really the same thing, in my opinion.
If you were able to pay for everything handily but pirated anyway, or if you resold pirated content, then yeah you have something similar to theft going on. But that’s not really the norm; those people are doing something bad irrespective of the piracy itself, aren’t they?
They wouldn’t have bought all the content they have pirated if piracy was not an option but they would have bought some of it.
Piracy has saves money. Saving money means I have more money to spend on other things. Earning money means I have more money to spend on other things. There’s no practical difference between the two.
In my view, my point still stands; being against one but not the other is hypocritical.
It’s not hypocritical if you believe that theft is wrong because it hurts another person, rather than wrong because you don’t deserve the thing or that it offers you an unfair advantage. Your argument leans heavily on the latter but mine the former.
Then please explain how pirating movies or games doesn’t cause harm to other people but training AI with the copyrighted work of others does.
In both cases you’re taking something for free that you’re expected to pay for. In both cases there’s someone not getting paid. The only difference between the two that I can see is the scale which is irrelevant from the point of view of the argument I’m making which is that it’s hypocritical to be against one but not the other.
Your average pirate isn’t looking to profit from their copyright infringement.
In a similar way, someone getting busted for downloading a movie is a civil matter, but if they get busted for selling unauthorized copies on DVD then it can become a criminal matter.
They’re saving money which is effectively the same thing.
The pirate is looking to save money with their copyright infringement.
These AI companies are looking to make money from it.
There’s no practical difference between the two.
If I save 100 bucks a month from my expenses it means I have an extra 100 bucks to spend on something else.
If I earn additional 100 bucks a month it means I have an extra 100 bucks to spend on something else.
The scale is the difference and who is harmed.
Billion dollar company losing $100. Who cares?!
Billion dollar company stealing from all artists in the world. We care.
Exactly. The difference is in people’s head. Not in the act in of itself.
Thief steals a lollipop. Who cares?
Thief steals a car. We care.
Both are still thieves.
That may be how you see it, but that’s not how the law works.
Well that’s not just how I see it, that’s how it is.
Also, piracy is illegal. If you think taking copyrighted work of others without permission and training your AI with it should be illegal aswell, then there’s no contradiction there. The people I do take issue with is the ones who see an issue with training AI but not with online piracy.
Well, you can think that but realize that you’re in the minority if you think breaking copyright for personal consumption is the same as breaking copyright for profit. That’s like saying stealing a loaf of bread because you are hungry is exactly the same as stealing a car so you can strip it for parts for resale.
Also, despite what the RIAA and MPAA would like you to believe, downloading a CD or DVD for personal use isn’t illegal, which is why it’s a civil matter when someone is busted. There’s a line that needs to be crossed before the criminal justice system gets involved, and it’s above that sort of thing.
Pirating movies or games for personal use is for profit. You’re saving money, which is effectively the same thing as earning money. The difference is in scale, not in kind. Just because you as an individual person are causing less harm by pirating content than a major corporation is, it doesn’t mean you’re not still commiting the exact same crime both legally and morally speaking.
It’s not because what they’re against is the consolidation of power.
If the principle “information is free” can lead to systems where information is not free, then that’s not really desirable, is it.
If free information to inspire more creative works can lead to systems with less creative works, then that’s not really desirable, is it.
deleted by creator