@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.

@EUCommission this thing is written in such a way that is extremely hard to navigate.
I had to double take everything and overwrite to properly explain my position.
Please, try to do better. I am above average at reading this kind of wording and documents, but this seems purposefully misleading at a lot of spots.Of note:The AI section is almost double worded and misleading, with almost 0 options to be putting a more severe control over AI instead of a laxer approach.Science section is quite bad.

@EUCommission This sounds like coming from a presumption that billion if not trillion dollar companies need an exception to just licensing the bloody content?

How? Why?

@EUCommission by enforcing the current copyright-protected content licenses.

You would not download a car.

@EUCommission When opt-in consent has been sought and explicitly obtained
And only then..