@EUCommission Like every other copyrighted work?

Only after explicit permission of the creators (not the right holders because they "merely bought a license to the art style" to phrase it how the software companies always do) AND with revenue sharing because otherwise artists can't survive and acquiring and using copyrighted materials without a license is piracy, no?

@EUCommission never without the permission of the copyright holder. We should consider this a specific right that can be granted by license. Also, ignoring the contents of a robots.txt file on a server should be a punishable offence.

@EUCommission This is such a bad form that I gave up after the first few questions. Does not seemlike genuine consultation.

All I want is:
1. people/companies pay for my books
or
2. similar scheme to where authors get paid for library use.

Anything more than that and a company pays for the rights in the same way as any other publisher (eg in negotiation with my publisher)

In short,
Input to LLM same as library use and I get paid.
ANY output: LLM company buys the rights.

@EUCommission Licensed specifically for AI training (I do not agree with the idea of letting works licensed under MIT, Creative Commons, *GPL, etc. as also being de-facto able to be used for AI training), and public domain works. Everything else should just fall under regular copyright violations if it's used for AI training.

AI training should be explicitly opt-in, not opt-out.

@EUCommission Keeping the wealthiest from monopolizing more root infrastructure, whether through AI, data centers, or otherwise, takes precedence over making AI a sleight of hand distraction tactic, applied by said abusive wealthy oligarchy.

Breaking up monopolies IS critical root infrastructure for the EU, especially when being surrounded my increasingly hostile agents, geopolitically.

Bring in root infrastructure scientists to assist reorganization, asap.

@EUCommission

We declare Anna's Archive, Library Genesis, and Sci-Hub public domain, and we reverse all of the anti-circumvention laws.

@EUCommission The way these questions are written, I can’t imagine anyone but a lawyer could competently answer them.

That’s a problem if you’re *actually* looking for democratic engagement in the system.

@EUCommission The use of copyright-protected content in artificial intelligence
The fight against online piracy of content like live events

LOL two tier rules.

AI can do piracy but not you ... hypocrit

@EUCommission When the copyright owner has granted a license for that purpose.

@EUCommission Europe should actually compete, not allow it's hands to be tied, thanks!

IMO open weights + open training plan = more fair use, and in general fair use should work that way (the less proprietary the derived work is, the more fair it is)

@EUCommission easy: unconditional basic income for everybody. once you got this working, everything may be creative commons. apart from that, the answer is also easy: NO!

@EUCommission We morally own the models because our works were used to train tho models. All models should be collectively owned.

@EUCommission If they don't get a license from me and pay me royalties then they don't use my content.

@EUCommission The fact that this question is up for discussion is ridiculous. You want to apply copyright laws to regular citizens, but not to tech billionaires?

@EUCommission
Just use the same consent concept used when you want to fuck someone. Because they certainly do.