Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
@eff You have lost all credibility and are out of touch with the general populace.
@eff What the fuck is wrong with you
@eff No, that's bullshit. When did the EFF switch sides and start wielding specious arguments for the bad guys?
This isn't an argument for free speech. This is a defense of drowning out speech that comes from people.
@eff I am in no way a supporter of how copyright laws are used at times especially to attack remixes but the LLM-case seems extremely clear: Fair use clearly limits commercial usage, especially one where you directly compete with the original work.
WTF are you going on about saying running a business like OpenAI under fair use is allowed?!? If they gave away the motel for free then sure, this could be argued, but they are literally making money off of stolen works.
@eff
Machine learning transfers skill to wealthy while withholding wealth from the skilled.
Isn’t copyright intended to do the opposite?
@eff You're gonna argue in favor of them being able to copyright the resulting AI mashup too, aren't you? That's converting our work into their work without consent or compensation.
@eff A few weeks full of disappointments. What a disaster.
@eff Who bribed you, and how much did they pay?
@eff I strongly disagree. And it seems many more disagree too. Fostering billionaires is not what liberalism is for.
@eff what the fuck is wrong with you...
Torpedoing everything good you do with such a shit take???...
@eff now this is disappointing
@eff i guess it is only theft if you aren't a billionaire? you had one job eff and you failed. protecting the rich was not it. grow a spine and fight for EVERYBODY not your tech bros
@eff deeply disappointing
@eff cmon EFF, what corporate contributions are you defending with that conclusion. It is resoundingly false. Your position should be the individual creator not some corporate monolith scraping the globe for all known human knowledge with the goal of regurgitation without citation. It is the largest copytheft industry in history.