• grrgyle@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    … either everyone pays or no one does.

    How about this. Either everyone pays, or no one does, or only some of them have to pay - depending on their use.

    This all-or-nothing is a false dichotomy. Like look at how much software is free for small scale users or educational or non-profit orgs.

    • mechoman444@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      And how exactly would this work?

      Actually I’ll tell you how this is going to work. Sites like Wikipedia, GitHub, stack overflow, ext will have to force every one of their users to open a personal account and conduct constant verifications to make sure they’re not AI’s.

      From what I’ve seen on the internet people don’t like this.

      So again it can’t be both, either it’s all free or it’s all paid for. There is no in between.

      Look, I know what you want to happen here and I even agree with it on the surface. Cooperations need to pay their fair share and many of them don’t. But I don’t think you understand the implications of what you’re asking for.

      Let the AI’s learn for free because in a few years it won’t matter anyway.

      We’re on the precipice of a technological singularity and hopefully in our lifetimes the function of a monetary economy will no longer be relevant.

      • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Licenses are binding because courts recognise them. For individual players it’s usually not worth pursuing, unless you’re Nintendo.

        But for large, wealthy, or venture backed, enterprises (notably, ones with legal departments) a class action suit is much more feasible.

        This is super basic. We can do better. This isn’t even like novel legal territory. We went through this with photography and Photoshopping.