While the article is in English, the link to source is in Japanese. The only external source I found suggests the discussion is about promoting open data and open science from research institutions [1]
[1] https://asianews.network/japan-to-promote-use-of-generative-...
> Additionally, the group raised other issues that Article 30-4 of the Copyright Law, which permits the use of a copyrighted work for machine learning, does not include procedures for gaining permission in advance from copyright holders. The article permits the use of copyrighted material such as text and images to train AI, regardless of whether the model is for commercial use. Under the current law, it is legal to train AI with copyrighted material even if the data was obtained illegally. The article contains a provision stating that such material cannot be used if it would “unreasonably prejudice the interests of the copyright owner,” but there are only limited examples provided to describe the “unreasonable prejudice.”
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d8b4ba7d-a764...
Right now, Japanese copyright doesn't apply to training models. Could change in the future but the article isn't inaccurate.
> It will be suggested that the current Japanese Copyright Law will be reviewed based on the upcoming technologies and be revised to adjust to correctly protect the right holders and navigate future users of the AI and new technologies like AI
The general message seems to be that 'Under current laws Japan's government can't enforce copyright on training data', and I don't believe the line you're quoting changes that message in any significant way at current.
I don't think it will hold up in the long term though and the Copyright Act will get changed but right now it doesn't apply to training models.
> まずＡＩによる情報解析についての我が国の法制度（著作権法）について確認したところ、我が国において、非営利目的であろうと、営利目的であろうと、複製以外の行為であろうと、違法サイトなどから取得したコンテンツであろうと、方法を問わず情報解析のための作品利用はできると永岡大臣が明言しました。
> Confirming the legal system (copyright law) wrt. data analysis by AI in our country, Minister Nagaoka clearly stated that in our country, whether for non-profit purposes or for profit purposes, whether an act other than reproduction, or whether the content is obtained from illegal sites, one can use works for information analysis regardless of the method.
(translated with ChatGPT-4 and then cleaned up)
The source is the one from the article: https://go2senkyo.com/seijika/122181/posts/685617
Danny was the person who was absolutely the best at this. I should have written one of them down, as I can't even reproduce it but he'd use some logical fallacy to make his case which is, for me at least, super hard to then have to dive into "but that's not how the universe works" without having a 20 minute discussion about life and losing the audience plus the person I'm talking to. Meanwhile, what he said was funny as hell.
Sure, anyone who understood the situation would understand this isn't a good reason, but you had to think about it (at least a little) before realising that. The "owww" moment removed any thinking brain cells from the audience. It was more impressive than frustrating to be honest, even being on the losing side every time.
These days, politics and PR frustrate me because the tactics are no longer among 16 year old classmates but about things that actually matter. The methods haven't changed, only the importance of the argument.
That’s because the audience is usually at the stage of a 16 year old, even if they are older. The aim of politics and pr are easily manipulated folks.
You know, those referred to as the “the market” or “the electorate”.
(ignoring the other people also struck by the lightning, or those who did not got hit)
But we grossly under-estimated how out-of-control this game will become when transposed into the unified digital space comprising social media, blogs and online news outlets (the so-called echo-chamber), combined with invasive data mining techniques of online behavior, sentiment analysis, click farms and now, drum roll... infinite amounts of LLM generated junk.
It is remarkable that people don't appreciate how broken the design that supposedly signifies "modernity" and opportunity.
You see corporate tactics being deployed in a wide variety of ways to secure a social, legal, and economic moats, since apparently they have limited technology only based moat. It's similar to how google files various amicus briefs against copyrights.
Google v. Oracle (2020): This was a landmark case in which Google was a party. The case revolved around whether copyright protection extended to a software interface. Google argued that APIs, which allow different software programs to communicate with each other, should not be subject to copyright. Google filed an amicus brief in its own case, arguing that a decision in favor of Oracle would stifle innovation in the tech industry.
Authors Guild v. Google (2015): This case involved Google's project to digitize millions of books from public and university libraries. The Authors Guild argued that Google was infringing on authors' copyrights. Google argued that its use of the books was fair use because it only showed snippets of the books in search results. Google filed an amicus brief in this case as well.
Aereo Case (2014): Google filed an amicus brief in support of Aereo, a company that provided a service for streaming broadcast television over the internet. Broadcasters sued Aereo, arguing that the service infringed on their copyrights. Google argued that a ruling against Aereo could have broad implications for cloud storage services.
Viacom v. YouTube (2012): In this case, Viacom sued YouTube, which is owned by Google, for copyright infringement. Google filed an amicus brief arguing that YouTube was protected by the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which protect service providers from liability for user-generated content.
Big Tech is often against Copyrights because they believe they have the economic moat to beat other players.
It is early days, in contrast with minting digital gold using software here the costs will come down. In any case not every "AI" model and application needs to pass Turing-test levels of language sophistry.
While you are right that (large) corporate interests are (and will be) the main actors here, I would not underestimate "noise traders" and other useful fools. With AI mania reaching apoplectic levels there is a wide population of actors that want to somehow get into the game.
The availability of open source AI models is an enabler in this respect, which may explain also the "leakage". Incidentally this issue is something the open source community needs to internalize and have a very clear position about.