I think they're trying to apply the same logic that's applied to internet platforms like YouTube, Twitter, etc., where the platform is only non-liable for copyright violations on their platform if they have a good-faith system in place for preventing copyright infringement and responding to DMCA requests. I don't think this logic should apply to ISPs, frankly the entire internet is far too large of a place to be monitored by any one company for copyright infringement, and I'd rather ISPs be nationalized and treated as public utilities than try to fit them into the same legal framework as social media companies.

That being said, even if the courts decide they should be forced into that same legal framework, ISPs could easily satisfy their legal obligations by simply blocking access to copyrighted content via their DNS service (which can easily be worked around by using an alternative DNS). There's no legal reason why ISPs would be expected to block individual users from their network, and even if there were, ISPs shouldn't be allowed to exist anyway, the state (and therefore the people) paid the lion's-share of the cost to lay all that fiber-optic and copper cable across the country, so the state should own that infrastructure and operate it in the interest of the people (Internet access would be considered a human right and publicly owned ISPs would only have prices high enough to break even, not generate a profit).

If internet companies want to make an argument like that, then internet should be treated as a utility.

I heard this meth is transported over the interstate, so we should block that as well.

Only because it would hurt their bottom line.

Funny how we can only win when it's corporations fighting each other.

Some of it is about the "Why"s.

Netflix nearly stamped out piracy for a while there by being a vastly more attractive alternative. Between them and Hulu, and to a lesser extent prime(at the time) if it was streaming, you could watch it somewhere at a reasonable price for a marginally reasonable viewing experience that was at least as good as most TPB downloads.

Then the IP owners got greedier and decided to strike out on their own with the "everyone has a streaming service" model, which would be GREAT if they largely shared content, but they don't.

The greed continues, not in order to adequately compensate creators, but to make a few handfuls of people not just rich but filthy rich. Every action they take suddenly becomes more penny pinching for more greed. At this point lots of the CONTENT CREATORS wish they had a better choice (how often do they say 'please watch it this way, that's just how they rank stuff, sorry'?)

Why is it the opposite with AI?

Because in comparison with stuff like streaming video or music platforms, AI is BARELY pretending to offer a functional service in exchange for the greed that's behind all of the money they're trying to force it to make for them.

And that's just for one side of the debate.

Why isn't the fact that AI is largely garnering the same responses even from DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED GROUPS telling you something about how bad of an idea it is in it's current incarnation?

Here's my guess. Piracy provides a competition against the horrible practices of streaming and entertainment companies that doesn't otherwise exist, forcing them to provide a better service.

Artists are just a single person making art and their service isn't gobbled up by the capitalist machine and turned into something user unfriendly. They don't usually make too much money, unlike huge entertainment corporations, either.

When it comes to piracy, individual content creators often don't care as long as they get money to live. There have been people who work on video games or movies who say they don't care if others pirate their work as long as others get to see it. But for AI, it copies and changes the work, stripping the art of its original watermark, and it sets itself up to be a replacement of the artist itself. It doesn't just spread their work without having you pay for it, it replaces the concept of needing an artist altogether, but only by using their labor in the first place without paying them for it.

If piracy let movie studios replace the idea of needing individual content creators, writers, artists actors, etc then people would feel differently I think. As it is now, people don't care about big studios, they care about the individual. Piracy currently only really harms the former and not the latter. AI is the opposite.

It's almost as if the people here favor individual rights over corporate profits.

It’s all the freedom of the high seas until AI gets mentioned.

The issue isn't quite so much copyright as privatization. And the distinction between "freedom on the high seas" and "AI" gets into the idea of the long term ownership of media.

One of the problems I run into, as a consumer of media, is that I can purchase a piece of content and then discover the service or medium I purchased it on has gone defunct. Maybe its an old video game with a console that's broken or no longer able to hook up to my TV. Maybe its a movie I bought on a streaming service that no longer exists. Maybe its personal content I've created that I'd like to transfer between devices or extend to other people. Maybe its a piece of media I don't trust sending through the mail, so I'd prefer to transfer it digitally. Maybe its a piece of media I can't buy, because no one is selling it anymore.

Under the Torrent model, I can give or get a copy of a piece of media I already own in a format that my current set of devices support. Like with a library.

Under the AI model, somebody else gets to try and extort licensing fees from me for a thing they never legally possessed to begin with.

I see a huge distinction between these two methods of data ownership and distribution.

Everyone is different.

I personally think copyright and patent laws need to die. If you can't protect your own secrets, don't rely on taxpayer resources to do it for you.

White-collar workers were cool with machines and poorer nations taking blue-collar jobs. Now that it threatens them and their money, the hypocrisy is on full display.

Let's get you back to your room Mr. Thomas.