Here are the key points from the page:>AI Video Generator: Runway’s AI video generation tool, Gen-3, was trained using thousands of YouTube videos and pirated content without permission.>Company Response: Runway’s co-founder did not disclose specific sources of the training data, stating they use curated, internal datasets.>Funding and Valuation: Runway raised $141 million from investors like Google and Nvidia, reaching a $1.5 billion valuation.>References: The page includes multiple references to other articles about AI scraping and its impacts.https://www.404media.co/runway-ai-image-generator-training-data-youtube/Personally I don't think it matters at all. There are currently no laws prohibiting the use of existing works, copyrighted or not, to create new and derivative works. It being derivative being the key. As long as the generator did not reproduce exact copies of the training data then they're fine. You would think these people would realize that once you post shit on the internet anyone can do anything they see fit to it. That's internet 101.
>>101567387You dont get itThe problem is the average Joe posting something based on existing content will get demonetized and banned. Meanwhile some scam company can do this with millions of videos. It's very shitty.
>>101567419YOU don't get it. They only get demonetized or copyright striked if they reupload already existing content. (Ie. A clip from the movie that is too long, or someone straight up we uploading someone else's videos and claiming them as their own.). The entire point of ai generation is to learn from existing works and create NEW and DERIVATIVE versions of them. SD's very nature is derivative
>>101567449It seems like that discourages creating anything new then, because people will just stea-I mean derive work from already existing work. What is the point of creating anything original if an AI is going to copyright strike you and upload their own work with insignificant deviations?
>>101567527>It seems like that discourages creating anything new thenLol no it doesn't. If anything it does the exact opposite because now they're motivated to put out quality content at a faster rate in order to keep up with the flood of ai slop. I see this as an AI art enthusiast: in terms of raw quality, ai art usually cannot compete with the real thing it is trained on unless you did a lot of post-generation editing and touchups. Most of us tolerate things like weird looking eyes, extra or missing fingers, anatomical fuckups, temporal inconsistency, etc, because SD is, and I'm not exaggerating, 99% used for porn. Look on R34 and you'll see what I'm talking about. >because people will just stea-I mean derive work from already existing workPeople have been doing that too smut artists (myself included) for will over a year now and it is not negatively affected even a single one. A lot of minority will bitch and moan about it for a day or two once they find out their art got LoRAd but then they'll just go right back to doing what they were doing previously: making art that THEY love because it's their passion. We don't live brunch free in their minds unlike no-draws who's entire personality is internet discourse. >What is the point of creating anything original if an AI is going to copyright strike you>AI>Copyright strike youWhat the actual FUCK are you talking about? People would attempt to do the opposite: the original artist or content creator will try to claim that they derivative AI shit is copyright infringement when it's very nature makes that impossible. What you just said would be like me making a doodle of Mickey mouse and then ME trying to sue DISNEY. (This example doesn't really work anymore because Mickey mouse is now public domain, but you get what I'm trying to say)
Embrace the future
>>101567613I understand your points, but I think there is going to be a point where companies will take advantage of AI and copyright strike work that the AI derived from. That was I suspect will happen at least. It will be a matter of who hits first.I'm just saying, I think AI is going to give companies even more power than they already have. Sure you make things out of passion, but there are things made for profit too that AI will steal from. It is derivative so who cares? But AI will get better and better, and there'll be nothing to protect you from it blatantly stealing from your work at some point and then go 'well its AI so it's derivative'. Maybe that won't matter to you, but I think it should.
>>101567387>YouTube Videosnot my circus, not my monkeys
>>101567894>companies will take advantage of AI and copyright strike work that the AI derived from.That's not how copyright striking work you drooling retard. Never touch a computer again if you're this dumb.
>>101569609>you violated my copyright protection, I have that same content>hey youtube this guy stole our content>copyright strike original video so they are no longer monetized/can keep the original video upWhere am I wrong?
>>101569700>>you violated my copyright protection, I have that same contentPlease put a lot of fucking God, stop talking. I already explain to you that derivative shit made by AI cannot be copyright striked. It works in reverse too. They are carbon copies of one of the other so neither party can copyright strike the other.
>>101569716How can they prove the AI made video is actually made by AI though? What then?
>>101567894The actual long-term game with companies is obviously the building of a database to generate AI content from organically so they can finally stop paying pennies to their Indian contractors.
>>101569745>How can they prove the AI made video is actually made by AI though?Irrelevant. If it's not a carbon copy, it cannot be striked. Whether or not it's AI does not matter.
>>101567387reminder that the concept of intellectual property- treating non-scarce information identically to scarce physical goods- is fundamentally irrational and cannot be fixed.
>>101569774So is capitalism desu.
>>101569808Why is capitalism 'fundamentally irrational'? Price signaling is natural, intuitive and wholly rational. Capitalism literally assigns a value to scarce resources based on their scarcity and their demand. Whereas intellectual property uses legal mumbo jumbo to allow "owners" to set prices and limit access of resources that are close enough to infinite (you can duplicate digital content with virtually no cost, no labor, etc)
Based.Is Runway the best free option atm?
>>101569901Price signaling comes from demand which ultimately relies on a mass human perspective that is perfectly irrational. The most well-paid jobs are generally offering intangible services that do not apply to the laws of supply and demand, their demand is specific and their niche market is fulfilled by ever-growing capital that abuses other flaws (interest rates, inflation, currency exchange et al) to inflate itself up to infinity, acting no better than a cancer.Intellectual property is a tacit acknowledgement of our broken society.
>>101569955That isn't a flaw of capitalism, its a flaw of regulation. Well, I don't really know what you are supposed to encompass when you say capitalism. To me price signaling is intuitively correct. "owning the means of production" and exploitation and all that is just garbage human behavior that needs to be regulated, no system works without regulation. There's a huge divide between the vagaries of what you're talking about and the sheer absurdity of being able to control scarcity in an abstract sense because of say, copyright
>>101567387>404mediayou mean the site that snitched on certain AI site and then lobotomized Image creation?
>>101572031>lobotomized Image creation?How?
Somehow the same people who were railing the music and film MAFIAA for grooming and using imaginary property law to squeeze consumers and choke the market of choices, are now decrying transformative use, calling machine-learning companies pirates, and calling for certain court rulings and even more fucking IP legislation.To be clear, I don't think it's actually legally settled whether or not LLM training is fair use yet. I haven't heard news from the Stability or Suno cases and I predict they will take a bit. I'm a supporter of companies doing science and publishing complete results openly and as fairly as possible, not a lobbyist for sillycon hypeniggers. And I do think that releasing training attribution lists alongside weights in cases where large custom scrapes are created would be the best compromise if not for the fact that it currently opens labs up to lawsuits from artists who see themselves on the database.I also know not every internet child and media child who have taken up arms in the name of being anti-""AI"" (whatever that is) are anti-copyright or in favor of copyright reform, but I do anticipate it is or was a lot of them. Or maybe they just hate """big corporations""" (as if the smallest mom-and-pop companies don't wish for growth?) and think whatever is socially convenient in their circles.
>>101574529With a lot of media, like music and movies, you can't really opt out. Other people will talk about the movies, songs are played and get stuck in your head, you'll be exposed to advertising. These all cause FOMO. You can say "grow up, be independent of your peers" etc. but reality is, people are social animals, we can't just choose to be out of the loop and deal with it. Given the choice, everyone is going to participate in fashion.Downloading a movie isn't just "I want this product but I don't want to pay for it", but a subconscious desire to belong. We feel we have to read important literature and watch films and series. And corporations obviously exploit this. Advertising isn't just targeted at the individual, but at the group. So they are inflicting damage on you, and you have to consume their product to get back to zero. I think most people subconsciously feel this, so they feel like they are owed these entertainment products. Copyright infringement being illegal feels unjust. Relatedly, most teenagers would delete social media if all their peers would as well.When you press people, they'll justify their opinions with reasons. But these reasons usually aren't causally upstream, so of course they aren't consistent.Artists probably really like it when their art reaches more people, if they get some money but especially the credit, but only if their artistic vision isn't violated. They really hate it when you take their art and make a version that they strongly dislike and it gets much more popular. This is obviously what they fear in AI, whether or not it actually happens. If I were a self-important artist I would lie awake worrying that someone on the internet is shitting over my work. This is a kind of nightmare fuel that causes burnout. Luckily I have no artistic talent, but I can imagine what it would be like.
>>101574854Actually a thoughtful take.If someone were to tell me that they don't like these flawed generations being intentionally created in their style, I'd get it a lot more. Artistic intent is huge, and anyone can now do anything with anyone's style. You cannot control what happens to your work after a certain point, though. Everyone from Nintendo to Ferrari to Disney to DeviantArt kids struggle come to terms with the reality that parody or unintended modifications will happen. But maybe it's valid to request people not tune on their style or share tuned work, maybe.Mind you, I'm still pretty sure that the much more common tone is aligned with this flawed and irrational idea of a machine that operates at a level that "replaces" people and somehow makes the act of creation not worth doing. Don't really feel like going over all the tired points, it's simply not aligned with reality.The copyright question for me is not really about social factors (can you imagine) but more about the inherent importance of culture itself, especially to its own continued existence, and to what extent you are supposed to protect the publishers and artists over its flow and the simple changing of consumer preferences. Out of no particular natural or physical constraints, the sanctioned wells for inspiration, information and hope are consistently behind what the customers want, what everyone knows can be provided, and what things provided previously and in the unsanctioned sphere have made work to great success, but fuck me, that’s another discussion. I’m also someone who just loves filesharing and nerdshit-flavored hoarding behavior; not an economist.
will we ever be able to run this shit locally
