what is the law’s position on AI-generated child porn?

Pretend underage porn is illegal in the EU and some other countries. I believe, in the US it is protected by the first amendment.

Mind that when people talk about child porn or CSAM that means anything underage, as far as politics is concerned. When two 17-year-olds exchange nude selfies, that is child porn. There were some publicized cases of teens in the US being convicted as pedophile sex offenders for sexting.

Aber ein Umdenken wohin? Das ist die Frage.

Ich finde auch, ehrlich gesagt, die öffentliche Debatte zu dem Thema ziemlich konfus. ZB werden ständig die Rechte auf Privatsphäre und auf Datenschutz durcheinander geworfen, obwohl es verschiedene sind, zwischen denen es potenzielle Spannungen gibt. Ich weiß nicht wirklich, wo die Gesellschaft als Ganzes hinwill.

To explain what that is: UK Newspapers all printed the same cover page to demand money for copyright owners. They all joined together to make their demand. Newspapers like to market themselves as guardians of democracy. This is what it looks like when they really want something.

They are spreading a lot of deceptive talking points. So here’s some facts.

UK copyright law applies in the UK. If the owners’ demands are met, then British people will have to pay owners around the world to use AI. These international owners try to invoke national solidarity by talking about “protecting British creativity”. But that’s a lie. British creatives would have to pay extra for software like photoshop, while the money would go to owners around the world. For example, Reddit would get money for owning the copyrights to the users’ posts.

Copyright is intellectual property. Like any other property, it is typically owned by the corporation that employed the worker that made it. If the owners are able to lobby their way to some free money, normal workers will not see a cent. Even most authors won’t. The printers, secretaries, janitorial staff, and so on, without whom none of these newspapers would exist, certainly won’t.

These are daily newspapers. Yesterday’s news are proverbially worthless. All the labor that went into producing these newspapers, including the authors, has been paid off. If these corporations get their wish, they will be able to sell their intellectual property a second time. That’s pure profit.

If this was about supporting “British creativity”, then you could use taxes to subsidize, for example, rooms for band practice. You could give the BBC more money for journalism. If you’re worried about job losses, you’d be thinking about unemployment benefits. No one is asking for any of that. It’s all about money for property owners around the world.