Why do you want fair use to work that way?

Another link (Germany's state funded foreign news broadcaster):

https://www.dw.com/en/ozzy-osbourne-black-sabbath-frontman-dead-at-the-age-of-76-his-family-says/a-73374795

Why does a book author work 6 months and doesn’t get paid for his job and an AI researcher works for 6 months and needs to be paid?

Why do you not want book authors to be paid now?

Like Nethack?

Or Angband?

C'mon. Look at her. Who wouldn't want to be sucked dry by her?

Actually... Do they do that? Or is that just spiders?

Anyway, I'm sure that their lovemaking involves giving head.

My single argument here is: Look at the AI industry and compare what you just said. They’re doing exactly the same thing, just 20 times worse.

Sorry, but you have not understood the concept yet.

You demand that AI companies should work for free and give things away for free. But they also should pay people that make no contribution.

I’ve laid down how the big AI companies do nothing for the benefit of other people.

They do, just like farmers. If people did not find their services beneficial, they would not pay.

the resources for that cost like $100 million

This is called a barrier to entry (Marktschranke).

It doesn't have to be very bad. For example, you can't just become a farmer. You must buy a farm. There are problems with that, but they aren't big. Food is cheap and plentiful.

The people who make AIs want to be paid for their work. The people who build and maintain the datacenters, the hardware, the electricity, and so on. Should they work for free?

The problem starts when people want more than that.

I really have a wide selection of sci-fi books available

Have you ever noticed how many of these books were written in the USA and cheaply translated into German?

Let’s tackle monopolies: Everyone can read a book in case they can get ahold of it. And with some intelligence and time, everyone can write a book. That’s a monopoly in your eyes

No. I think you misunderstood. An exclusive copyright is a monopoly by definition.

The incident with Meta torrenting books for example had them on the opposite side. They took care to “leech”.

They were legally required to do that. Downloading the books for their purposes was fair use. Uploading would certainly not have been.

I don't understand how this accusation makes the slightest bit of sense. These torrents are a violation of EU copyright law. Your argument means that these torrents shouldn't exist in the first place. You are not demanding that Meta should be allowed to upload these books. You're saying they shouldn't be allowed to download them, either.

I see. Thank you. I'm afraid you don't quite understand what rent-seeking means. Let me try a hypothetical example.

Food is pretty cheap. But suppose a single company had a monopoly on supplying food. How much would people be willing to pay? People would give almost anything they have.

The reason food is cheap, is because there is no monopoly. If someone charges more than the competition, you go to the competition. You get a market price. It's complicated but one thing that goes into the price of food is the cost of labor. Many people must work to supply food.

These workers could do other things with their time. But also, other people could do their work of supplying food. No one has a monopoly. Eventually, the cost of labor depends on how much money you must offer to people to be willing to put up with the work.

If someone had a monopoly on food supply, they could charge fantastic prices. Their cost would not change. The difference between the market price and the monopoly price is the monopoly rent.

Let's take this closer to AI training.

Let's say there's some guy who's searching through libraries and archives for stuff to digitize so that it can be sold to AI companies for training. He finds an archive of old newspapers. How much would the market price for scans of these newspapers be? Let's ignore copyright for now.

Maybe the potential buyer could send someone else to scan the papers. So our guy could only ask to be paid for the labor in scanning the papers.

So our guy will not say where he found that archive. That is his trade secret. The potential buyer would have to send someone to search for that archive and scan it. That means our guy can ask to be paid for his labor in finding the archive AND scanning it. The potential buyer will only hire someone else to do that if our guy asks too high a price.

There is a way our guy can get more. If he destroys all remaining copies of these newspapers, then he has a monopoly. Now he can ask for as much as the potential buyer is willing to pay. That's a monopoly rent.

Now copyright... Those newspapers are probably under copyright. If our guy is in Europe, he will have to get permission by the rights-holder to scan the papers. Copyright is a monopoly enforced by the state. The rights-holder can now extract the monopoly rent from our guy.

If the publisher has gone out of business, the rights-holders may be hard to find but he has to make the effort. In practice, this means that there is really no point in making the effort to preserve European culture and history. The copyright people don't just harm technological progress and the European economy, they harm European culture. That's parasitic.

You're making the argument that OpenAI and others are trying to get paid. That's not rent-seeking. Ideally, our laws ensure that seeking money makes you work for the benefit of other people.

Farmers work for money, and everyone else gets a lot of good, cheap food out of it. If you demand that farmers should work for free, then you're demanding that many of us should starve.

I don't know much about mimicry, but I'm pretty sure the point of praying barbie's outfit is, that butterflies and bees also love her.

This is closer to the idea: https://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-Micropayment-Markup-19990825/

1. Clickbait is one of the bigger problems on the net. I don't want to pay for more of it.

2. I am much less opposed to being tracked than some people here. But the complete and unavoidable surveillance implied by such a scheme takes it a bit far.

Actually, given Lemmy's usual knee-jerk reaction to tracking and commercialization, I can only assume that people aren't thinking through this proposal.

Ahh. But have you evolved your tailbone into a pilot light?

Well, is it crunchy? Such a disappointment when they don't crunch after all.