In terms of copyright law, it matters very much whether Joe Schmoe is using his own copy of the data for his own purposes, or whether he is making more copies and distributing them to other people.
If the AI companies were letting people download copies of their training data, copyright law would certainly have something to say about that. But no: once they download the training data, they keep it, and they don't share it.
Yes? That is a different thing? I guess we can keep moving the topic until we're talking about the same topic if you want. But honestly, I don't want to have that kind of conversation.
Sure... now go back to your edgy comment and keep this in mind to see why everyone is arguing with you
>>...> To be honest, these companies already stole terabytes of data and don't even disclose their dataset, so you have to assume they'll steal and train at anything you throw at them
>...> "Reading stuff freely posted on the internet" constitutes stealing now?
Literally everyone was talking about data ownership and you just said "I can download it, so it is fair game on my hardware." Let's say you didn't intend to say that. Well that doesn't matter, that's what a lot of people heard and you failed to clarify when pressed on this.
My entire comment was that the entire issue is about data ownership. Doesn't even matter if you have a copy of the data.
It matters how that copy was obtained.
There's no reason to then discuss if your usage violates the terms of a license if you obtained the data illegally. You're already in the illegal territory lol.
If the AI companies were letting people download copies of their training data, copyright law would certainly have something to say about that. But no: once they download the training data, they keep it, and they don't share it.