261–270 of 309 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the right take — whatever your position on the future of this technology or its costs and benefits for humanity, the hypocrisy mentioned here shouldn't go unacknowledged.
It's only "hypocrisy" if it's the same people saying it. The media zeitgeist is not a person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why are you introducing this 'last decade' thing. Was the decade before not relevant? I'm arguing that policy preferences around copyright infringement have changed in general . In general, in 1990s, copyright infringement meant "crime, reprehensible, police, prisons, etc." for both individuals and coporations. In general, in the past decade, it's meant none of those things for either individuals or corporations. Y…
Your link to the guidelines doesn't prevent me from implying you're directing away from the point, and nor should it. >I'm arguing that policy preferences around copyright infringement have changed in general. Perhaps they have, and I take on your take on that. In the end you were replying to me and the original poster so respect the spirit of those posts.
Someone compared treatment of X 20 years ago to treatment of Y today -- seems pretty natural to bring up treatment of X more recently. You can't just say "the original comment didn't mention it so you can't mention it either".
I don't see how your accusations of bad faith are warranted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I the only one that loves a blunt and honest comment? Funny how advocates against property rights have no issue with corporations protecting their own. That’s fine. What they want is to legally steal from the average joe.
Are you stealing from your lord, serf? Perhaps you should be churning the butter, not thinking for yourself. (I kid, I kid!) It's going to be just as easy to make a movie or a song as it was to write this comment. I'm working and researching at the edge, and I promise you that the entire world will be in awe of these next 12 months. Go play with Suno for a taste. I'm a senior engineer, and now I'm tab completing Rust…
People were saying the same thing 12 months ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because it's publicly viewable does not mean it's free for reuse. Imagine an author who uploads chapters of their book to their own website. You cant take that and claim it's yours. Similarly with all the publically viewable source codes on GitHub/Lab. Just because you can view the code doesn't mean there aren't licenses in play for how you are able to use it. Further, what happens if stolen information is poste…
That 'usage' is taking statistical notes about the work (creating factual statements about the work) and imputing those notes into a database, averaged with a few billion other notes about other works. That is a usage that copyright under current law simply doesn't cover or protect for. It doesn't even need the analysis if 'fair use' because, there's no copying or public performance happing in the creation/training o…
All digital content is statements about the work. Pictures are pixels with facts about colours. Books are characters describing the words.
AI models are compressed versions of those.
Downloading, ingesting into models, and redistributing them is copyright infringement.
Even if they weren’t compressed; downloading them without permission is not permitted. Every now and then you can read about ai criminals discussing techniques for illegally acquiring books, images and other protected content even here on HN. It wouldnt be an issue if it were licensed content, or a dudette training her local ai. These are companies that want to monetise people’s work. Somehow, just like thieves, they feel they are entitled to snatching someone else’s property.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's only "hypocrisy" if it's the same people saying it. The media zeitgeist is not a person.
Idk man; I think our values and the enforcement of those values should have some moral self-consistency to them on a cultural level too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And plenty of people are threatened with lawsuits for seeding on an ongoing basis, especially in some markets like Germany where an entire industry stalks public torrents looking for German IPs.
> plenty of people are threatened with lawsuits for seeding on an ongoing basis, especially in some markets like Germany Fair enough, I'm talking about America. To my knowledge, individuals downloading pirated content have not been threatened with lawsuits. And to the degree seeders have been threatened, it's only that--threats. When was the last distributor actually sued?
But the fact that they're not being sued is a weird delineation to make. They're not being sued because they can't afford to defend so are settling. It's not a case that IP owners aren't enforcing copyright, they're just not escalating to actual lawsuits because they don't need to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The obelisk symbol after Sapiens word put in the manner it is being put after the names of dead people emparrassed me a little.
Can you please clarify this cryptic comment? The OP just used a common variation of asterisk, and I am really confused what your beef with it is. "in the manner it is being put after the names of dead people " is a total non sequitur in this context, how is that in any way related to the discussion or anything the OP said?
I find it revealing that some decades ago when teenagers were copying mp3s in their rooms for their own enjoyment it was piracy, crime, reprehensible, police, prisons, etc. When corporations are doing mass copyright infringement, we are talking about death of IP or changing the copyright laws to accommodate them.
What happens when AI systems can work around IP?
This gets done all the time now. It is going to be way cheaper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> plenty of people are threatened with lawsuits for seeding on an ongoing basis, especially in some markets like Germany Fair enough, I'm talking about America. To my knowledge, individuals downloading pirated content have not been threatened with lawsuits. And to the degree seeders have been threatened, it's only that--threats. When was the last distributor actually sued?
I know porn owners go after seeders in the US, I've seen news articles from torrentfreak.com to that extent. But the fact that they're not being sued is a weird delineation to make. They're not being sued because they can't afford to defend so are settling. It's not a case that IP owners aren't enforcing copyright, they're just not escalating to actual lawsuits because they don't need to.
I’m asking for evidence of these settlements.
The claim is corporations are being given a free pass relative to how individuals are being treated. I’m not seeing that signal. What I am seeing is Americans becoming more sceptical about intellectual property as a result of the MPAA and RIAA overplaying their hands in the 90s.
I find it revealing that some decades ago when teenagers were copying mp3s in their rooms for their own enjoyment it was piracy, crime, reprehensible, police, prisons, etc. When corporations are doing mass copyright infringement, we are talking about death of IP or changing the copyright laws to accommodate them.
Microsoft has been arguably the largest beneficiary of software copyright. Gates argued for it in the early days of MicroSoft. Microsoft's anti-piracy campaigns are unparalleled. Anyone remember the "Business Software Alliance".
Now the company wants to be the largest beneficiary of "AI".