Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.”
-
Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
@eff excuse me? That’s theft, not creativity.
You just lost every reason to exist. Go disband.
-
Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
@eff This is exactly the kind of creation copyright exits to protect from. Fuck off.
-
Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
@eff fuck 'tech progress', it's.progressed enough.
-
@eff The irony here is that this is the same EFF that has worked to liberalize copyright law, this lawsuit being no different. Unpopular as AI training may be, I am a bit surprised to see the pushback to the EFF's actions (which honestly looks like a coordinated, corporate-backed effort to shore up support for copyright maximalism), but I get why taking a principled stand is unpopular since it necessarily entails defending unpopular positions occasionally. Even Techdirt defends the practice.
@Big_Blue_Gnu @eff it has not even to do with copyright maximalism, “AI” is a deeply fascist technology and has a multitude of problems, on different axes, that, each alone, are already an absolute reason for it to need to be destroyed.
-
@eff Much like how my tummy 'transforms' corn into a corn interspersed turd.
@UraniumNutt @eff and, tbh, hampering tech would be a good thing at this time.
-
Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
-
Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
@eff can we not with the excuses for the Nazi Child Porn machines?
-
Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
@eff What the EFF?
-
Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
@eff Are you sure this is the venue you wish to announce this to?
Just asking, because 2017 should be long enough to have a handle on the culture here.
-
Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
@eff Burn in hell, you fascist backstabbers.
-
Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
@eff oh, AI is transformative alright. it's transforming earth into a hellscape even faster than it already was.
who has access to everything they stole, anyway? if their stolen shit leaked, who would get in trouble? no one?
-
Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
@eff This is NOT all that is going on, EFF account-minder, and I reject your softened and euphemized framing of this issue. This isn't about "training" or "transformation" or any positive purpose, it's about capturing and destroying information, grabbing the books and other works and stuffing them into the machine and then making sure nobody else can use the stuff for their own rackets.
This is a fraud. The entire #tech sector is consecrated to CHEATING. You can't honestly say that there's a positive "transformative" purpose in the GenAI obsession.
There's no reason at all at work. Their thing isn't an "AGI superintelligence" and they know it. When do we stop pretending that this is just kind-hearted software engineers wanting to change the world? They exist, but not anywhere powerful in U.S. business or technology.
-
Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
@eff
What
The
FuckI'm stunned. This is the last organization I expected to take a stance against individuals and placate to the authoritarians.
-
Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
This post did not contain any content. -
Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
@eff This is a profoundly disappointing take by the EFF.
-
Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
@eff bye
-
Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
I remain unconvinced.
As a layperson, I’ve been told that the point of copyright has been to make sure the writer and their publisher can earn a livelihood, so they may live to write another days
I know if I were to consistently copy or distribute copyrighted articles in such a way that it affects these companies bottom line to the point where they downsize, they’d come for me with an arsenal of lawyers.
So there are consequences for us small people.
But along comes OpenAI and the gang, and because they transform these copyrighted works into a model, it’s suddenly alright if they don’t license it even though they actually replace a whole numbers of writers?
That doesn’t add up to me.
I don’t buy the hand waving in this article about “it’s not replacing jobs” either. It shouldn’t, but it does, right now, because management isn’t always smart.
I think copyright is flawed and a bandaid for a not-working economic system, but you can’t rip off the bandaid before you fixed the system.
So that’s a no from me.
-
Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
@eff for fucks sake.
No! Bad EFF!
-
@Big_Blue_Gnu @eff Um, no. Our rage is not corporate-backed and is not copyright-maximalism. The idea that AI training is wrong is copyright-minimalist. It doesn't even depend on copyright, just "moral rights" of authors.
@dalias
@Big_Blue_Gnu @eff
First off, I agree that AI companies are bad and they stole from probably every single one of us and especially authors to work the way they do.
BUT, I think its important to recognize that we're at one hell of a cross roads.
On the one hand, we can agree with the AI companies and say that this is transformative and therefore fair use. We can still argue that the data was almost certainly stole via piracy, but the important argument by the AI company is turning books into training data and making an LLM is transformative.
On the other hand, we can agree with the media industry. That copyright laws need to be tightened and more strictly enforced so that an AI company can get in trouble if they produce content that even vaguely resembles a copyrighted IP. Disney will go after power cable companies for the damn Mickey Mouse plugs.
And I hate both of these options. I imagine most people hate both these options, but without a good "middle of the road" option at the moment, I'm gonna have to side with the AI companies on the question of fare use.
Everything else about their scheme is deplorable and easy to hate. I will be excited when the scheme fails.
I also recognize they're not "on our side" about copyright they are simply exploiting fair use. That said I think if they win, they will weaken IP laws over all. -
Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
@eff yooooo this sucks
i mean, completely unsurprising from y’all at this point, but regardless. sucks. big sucks. sucks shit.
