This is interesting. It seems a fair resolution would be to pay the content owner what they would have made in ad revenue.
As long as the AI is not reproducing original works to the extent that it violates fair use, I don’t think copyright laws really apply. But there’s definitely lost revenue.
While I am generally in the “copyright doesn’t matter when it comes to AI” camp, I also work in advertising. Most people do not use ad blockers.
This is an interesting point that I haven’t previously considered.
The cost is too high? Seriously?
You’re not paying anything for the service. You have no concept of what their costs are. You’re mildly inconvenienced by some annoying and slightly obtrusive ads.
It’s a business, not a charity. And they owe you nothing.
Sponsored search placements haven’t really changed. Most ads are run through AdWords which are found across the web and on mobile apps. Even this post is about ads run within videos. Thus unrelated to search.
Yeah, completely agree. But this is also Lemmy. The majority of users are either a communist or almost a communist. And usually have a pretty bad understanding of what that even entails. Generally they just want everything to be free or paid for by someone else.
Who do you expect to pay for it?
Always was. How tf do you think they make money
So many people in this comment section are pissed that YouTube isn’t both free and ad-free. It’s mind blowing.
Yes, YouTube is a business and exists to generate revenue.
My security deposit was returned to me with interest added.
I was told not to paint anything because they do that whenever someone leaves as standard practice.
Sometimes apartments aren’t bad.
It’s definitely written by someone who’s never used a VR headset. It only takes a second to realize that these screens are nowhere near the resolution of your eye. Ya know, cause small text that would be easily read on my phone is blurry as fuck on a VR headset
I’m in the US and have these windows. They have screens. They’re also not that special. I prefer the regular windows
I don’t agree. The publisher of the material does not get to dictate what it is used for. What are we protecting at the end of the day and why?
In the case of a textbook, someone worked hard to explain certain materials in a certain way to make the material easily digestible. They produced examples to explain concepts. Reproducing and disseminating that material would be unfair to the author who worked hard to produce it.
But the author does not have jurisdiction over the knowledge gained. They cannot tell the reader that they are forbidden from using the knowledge gained to tutor another person in calculus. That would be absurd.
IP law protects the works of the creator. The author of a calculus textbook did not invent calculus. As such, copyright law does not apply.
Reproduction of copyrighted material would be breaking the law. Studying it and using it as reference when creating original content is not.
I had a car with push button start and a CVT. After putting the first 50 miles on the car, the brake light switch died. Nissan, in their ultimate wisdom, used the brake light switch to tell the computer if you are pressing the brake when starting the car. Well, no brake light switch, no starting the engine. Had to get it towed back to the dealership to get fixed.
I now have a real key and a manual transmission.
Hackers like to glitch other users. Randomly turn into a toilet, have all of your ammunition disappear, suddenly fly into the air and die on impact. It made public servers unplayable. Friends only sessions were necessary