Pillaged from BlueSky:
"20 years ago we were suing teenagers for millions of dollars because they were torrenting a single Metallica album and now billionaires are demanding the free right to every work in history, so that they can re-sell it.
The law only ever serves capital."

@AlisonCreekside And 20 years ago a million kids listened to Metallica, learned to play Enter Sandman badly and went and wrote their own stuff in time legally.

The real questions are not about using it, but then copying it and what degree of influence is copying. "AI" reading/listening to content is good, it's the same law and rights that lets you read content, lets search engines and screen readers work.

When it starts sharing, redistributing stuff well beyond "influenced by" it's a problem

@etchedpixels @AlisonCreekside Not comparable, as the AI parrot cannot write its own Enter Sandman-derived song. It will redistribute a mesh of stuff.

So, it technically is violating several licenses at the same time hoping to rip so many people at once that it becomes unfeasible to sue them. There is no-one to "influence" on AI.

@alfabravoteam @AlisonCreekside The AI and its owners probably signed no licence agreements so I doubt licenses of any kind have any bearing on the debate.

"derived" in the sense of "derived work" has a specific meaning, so if something was Enter Sandman derived it wouldn't matter whether it was generated by an algorithm (and calling it 'AI' is misleading IMHO), or by a human. It would be subject to copyright law and the Enter Sandman rights owner would own some of the rights.