Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Japan Goes All In: Copyright Doesn't Apply to AI Training

biia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 183 posts

Re: Japan Goes All In: Copyright Doesn't Apply to AI Training

#151

Post by johncolanduoni »

munk-a wrote: post #46
mjburgess wrote: post #22

This is just an end to copyright. There is no definition of "AI", it has always been a marketing term for monetising csci research. There is no difference between a lossy jpg, taking its pixels as weights, and the weights of a NN. So if i just zip up copyrighted images using a NN, then, what? They're public domain? Regulators here are miles away from understanding the implications -- this is what happens when you let…

It'd be really interesting to open up a movie theater in Japan that just ingests blockbusters through a "do nothing" NN and then be able to screen them royalty free. This decision feels incredibly half baked.

That will probably go about as well as distributing an encrypted copyrighted work along with its encryption key and then claiming that none of the bits are the same so you did nothing wrong. Courts historically have not had any problem sorting out nerdy fantasy workarounds of the type often posted on HN.

Re: Japan Goes All In: Copyright Doesn't Apply to AI Training

#152

Post by jncfhnb »

LegitShady wrote: post #142
jncfhnb wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do have to be the same because learning is not something you can constrain with law pragmatically. Style and structure is not protected and can be mimicked so it is trivial to do parallel construction for any stylistic ideal even if the law says you can’t train on the original. Society does not benefit from these extra steps. Specific IP like characters are already perfectly well protected by copyright. It does…

You can train all the shit you want but if you train on someone else's materials without a license and your product makes money you should be forced to stop selling your product and to transfer the profits to the people who you took advantage of for your own I just enrichment. If you do it a lot you should go to jail.

So if you create a cool new art style, and I copy the style by hand, and then I use my copy to train a model that can now generate your style without having ever seen your work it’s ok?

Because if you think this is not ok then you are arguing that people own styles. And they don’t.

And if you think it is ok then you’re just arguing for pointless extra steps.

Re: Japan Goes All In: Copyright Doesn't Apply to AI Training

#154

Post by redcobra762 »

jondwillis wrote: post #140
redcobra762 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you ask it to sure, but there are examples of ChatGPT reproducing whole NYT articles, with not nearly enough alterations to constitute a new work.

What were the prompts? A whole article would barely fit in the output tokens, typically, yeah?

https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2023/12/NYT_Complaint_Dec20...

Exhibit J (phone won’t cooperate with paste).

Re: Japan Goes All In: Copyright Doesn't Apply to AI Training

#156

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

gwd wrote: post #34
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to see how sensible copyright policy is equivalent to burning infants as human sacrifice to Canaanite deities.

Context: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ TLDR: A "Moloch Trap" is a generic term for situations like the the Prisoner's Dilemma, where optimal actions for the group are the opposite of optimal actions for each individual in that group.

Even with this context, seems a little dumb. Copyright maximalists are constantly trying to invent new rights that they've never had. If a person is allowed to read training material acquired legally, then so too must their LLM experiment be allowed to read it. The LLM reading it creates no new copies.

Moloch didn't win here. Everyone else did. We get new technologies, the copyright owners got everything they were promise, just not more.

Re: Japan Goes All In: Copyright Doesn't Apply to AI Training

#157

Post by xtracto »

throwitaway222 wrote: post #87

For all we know, in 5 years you could ask an AI to "reproduce the entire Supernatural TV show but change the character names, dialog and look just enough to bypass copyright issues - 7 seasons, 24 episodes each MP4 format"

(All IMHO) Which is great! Copyright is stupid and it is time we derogated that 350 old law which at this point is stifling innovation.

As I said in another thread: Sorry if your 40 hour work won't pay you $10 bucks a month forever. That's the case for most of the rest of us: we produce for 40 hours, we get paid for those 40 hours, regardless of what we do. Welcome to the club!!

Re: Japan Goes All In: Copyright Doesn't Apply to AI Training

#158

Post by xtracto »

Ekaros wrote: post #74
traverseda wrote: post #30

How would that effect, for example, maintaining a large corpus of pirated work for training AI on? Presume that you didn't break any other laws in the process of pirating the works? Could I license a large corpus of pirated work to people explicitly using it for AI training? Like if I downloaded all the books, and then sold access to that collection to someone for AI training, with them agreeing to a EULA preventing…

My understanding in general with piracy is that it goes after those that do the distribution. So you downloading all possible material from where ever as long as it is not illegal is likely rather low risk/penalty. However system will absolutely destroy you if you try to sell or distribute copies of material you collected...

I know here we are talking about Japan, and I am not familiar with Japan stance on Downloading / Uploading and copyright violations.

But here in Mexico, you can download all you want, and last time I read the law, as long as you did stuff "not for profit" you could also distribute digital content.

(of course I always say that, here in Mexico it is illegal to murder people, kidnap and whatnot, and look at how much they prosecute people that do that [95% of crime goes unpunished in Mexico [1]])

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/violent-crimes-rise-mexi...

Re: Japan Goes All In: Copyright Doesn't Apply to AI Training

#159

Post by Ekaros »

xtracto wrote: post #158
Ekaros wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding in general with piracy is that it goes after those that do the distribution. So you downloading all possible material from where ever as long as it is not illegal is likely rather low risk/penalty. However system will absolutely destroy you if you try to sell or distribute copies of material you collected...

I know here we are talking about Japan, and I am not familiar with Japan stance on Downloading / Uploading and copyright violations. But here in Mexico, you can download all you want, and last time I read the law, as long as you did stuff "not for profit" you could also distribute digital content. (of course I always say that, here in Mexico it is illegal to murder people, kidnap and whatnot, and look at how much the…

Civil liability in many European countries and in USA too seems the real risk. Seed a torrent from home with wrong content and get nice "blackmail" letter from some lawyer... Go to court and end up paying thousands if not hundreds of thousands on some extremely bizarre calculations.

Re: Japan Goes All In: Copyright Doesn't Apply to AI Training

#160

Post by LegitShady »

jncfhnb wrote: post #152
LegitShady wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can train all the shit you want but if you train on someone else's materials without a license and your product makes money you should be forced to stop selling your product and to transfer the profits to the people who you took advantage of for your own I just enrichment. If you do it a lot you should go to jail.

So if you create a cool new art style, and I copy the style by hand, and then I use my copy to train a model that can now generate your style without having ever seen your work it’s ok? Because if you think this is not ok then you are arguing that people own styles. And they don’t. And if you think it is ok then you’re just arguing for pointless extra steps.

if you create derivitave works of my projects to use in your commercial AI, you're still abusing my work for your own gain.
Post reply on HN