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

Be a property owner and not a renter on the internet

den.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 270 posts

Re: Be a property owner and not a renter on the internet

#241

Post by Kim_Bruning »

omnimus wrote: post #182
DrScientist wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the new AI training methods are currently, at least imho, not a violation of copyright - not any more than a human eye viewing it Interesting comparison - as if a human viewed something, memorized it and reproduced in a recognisable way to be pretty much the same, wouldn't that still breach copyright? ie in the human case it doesn't matter whether it went through an intermediate neural encoding - what matters i…

This whole AI learns like a human is trajectory of thought pushed by AI companies. They at same time try to humanize AI (it learns like a human would) and dehumanize humans (humans are stochastic parrots anyway). It's if anything a distraction if not straight up anti-human. But you are right that copyright is complex and in the end decided by human (often in court). Consider how code infringement is not about code it…

> Consider how code infringement is not about code itself but about what it does. If you saw somewhat original implementation of something and then you rewrite it in different language by yourself there is high chance its still copyright infringement.

Actually if you rewrite it in a different language, you're well on your way to making it an independent expression; (though beware Structure, Sequence and Organization, unless you're implementing an API : See Google v. Oracle). Copyright protects specific expressions, not functionality.

> Compare that to pepople prompting directly with name of artist they want to replicate. This in direct copyright infringement in both essence and intention no matter the resulting image.

As far as I'm aware an artists' style is not something that is protected by law, Copyright protects specific works.

If you did want to protect artistic styles, how would you go about legally defining them?

Re: Be a property owner and not a renter on the internet

#242

Post by SkiFreeWin3 »

captainnemo229 wrote: post #233
liontwist wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your question is kind of backwards, as an interesting website idea is more of a project than a good domain name. But here goes: Document every VR headset released with technical details and references

I agree with you, but I also love when people intentionally go the other way and come up with something cool. Like that Vidalia Onions guy.[0] [0]: https://www.deepsouthventures.com/i-sell-onions-on-the-inter...

you're not far off there Nemo, and that was a good dig on the vidalia onion guy! totally remember that

Re: Be a property owner and not a renter on the internet

#243

Post by chii »

DrScientist wrote: post #207
chii wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ChatGPT can simultaneously claim to return accurate information while at the same time being completely independent from the sources of the information? why can't that be true? Information is not copyrightable. The expression of information is. If chatGPT extracted information from a source works, and represent that information back to you in a form that is not a copy of the original works, then this is completely…

So you think taking something like the Encylopedia Britanica, running it through a simple rewording algorithm, and selling it on is totally 'fair use'? Taking all newspaper and proper journalistic output and rewording it automatically and selling it on is also 'fair use'? Stand back from the detail ( of whether this pixel or word is the same or not ) and look at the bigger picture. You still telling me that's all fin…

> Taking all newspaper and proper journalistic output and rewording it automatically and selling it on is also 'fair use'?

it would be, if the transformation is substantial. If you're just asking for snippets of existing written works, then those snippets are merely derivative works.

For example, if you asked an LLM to summarize the news and stories of 2024, i reckon the output is not infringing. Because the informational contents of the news is not itself copyrightable, only the article itself. A summary, which contains a precis of the information, but not the original expression, is surely uncopyrightable - esp. if it is a small minority of the source (e.g., chatGPT used millions of sources).

> won't be able to make a living so these important activities will cease.

this is irrelevant as far as i'm concerned. They being able to make or not make a living is orthogonal. If they can't, then they should stop.

Re: Be a property owner and not a renter on the internet

#244

Post by Terr_ »

w4 wrote: post #83
Terr_ wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, but lately I've had this quixotic daydream of a combination accept-cookies / agree-to-TOS page that comes up, and the Terms of Service says by proceeding they agree to give the site-owner an perpetual, irrevocable, and royalty-free to use and re-license any future content that they create using any generative AI that was trained using the website contents. Then you carefully log what LLM user-agents/IPs go pas…

This idea is reminiscent of the opening scene of Accelerando by Charlie Stross: Are you saying you taught yourself the language just so you could talk to me?" "Da, was easy: Spawn billion-node neural network, and download Teletubbies and Sesame Street at maximum speed. Pardon excuse entropy overlay of bad grammar: Am afraid of digital fingerprints steganographically masked into my-our tutorials." … "Uh, I'm not sure…

More inspired by the GPL, I think, although the sketch above doesn't force the writer to put things into the public domain.

I'm imagining a separate declaration of: "Content I can sublicense from ShittyNewsLLM--which is everything made by their model--is now public-domain through me until further notice", without any need to identify specific items or rehost it myself.

I suppose the counterstrike would be for them to try to transform their own work and argue what they finally released contains some human spark that wasn't covered by the ToS, in which case there may need to be some "and any derivative work" kinda clause.

I wonder if some organization (similar to the Open Software Foundation) could get some lawyers and web-designers together to craft legally-sound site-design rules and terms-of-service, which anyone could use to protect their own blogs or web-forums.

Re: Be a property owner and not a renter on the internet

#245

Post by Valord »

pcloadletter_ wrote: post #15
muglug wrote: post #6

This is good advice for people whose livelihood depends on the attention of anonymous strangers. For everyone else, it’s probably ok to ignore.

It's also just kind of cool and fun to hack together a personal website

Had the itch. Did it. No regrets

Re: Be a property owner and not a renter on the internet

#246

Post by liontwist »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #236
liontwist wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last I checked creators of a work held copyright for it and that hasn’t changed. So no, this is not a new legal question

That's not how copyright law works. That's not how anything works.

Ok. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion.

Re: Be a property owner and not a renter on the internet

#247

Post by omnimus »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #241
omnimus wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This whole AI learns like a human is trajectory of thought pushed by AI companies. They at same time try to humanize AI (it learns like a human would) and dehumanize humans (humans are stochastic parrots anyway). It's if anything a distraction if not straight up anti-human. But you are right that copyright is complex and in the end decided by human (often in court). Consider how code infringement is not about code it…

> Consider how code infringement is not about code itself but about what it does. If you saw somewhat original implementation of something and then you rewrite it in different language by yourself there is high chance its still copyright infringement. Actually if you rewrite it in a different language, you're well on your way to making it an independent expression; (though beware Structure, Sequence and Organization,…

I dont believe rewrite in different language is specific expression.

We will see because we are well on our way of LLMs being able to translate whole codebases to different stack without a hitch. If thats OK than any of the copyleft, open-core or leaked codebases are up for grabs.

Re: Be a property owner and not a renter on the internet

#248

Post by omnimus »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #241
omnimus wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This whole AI learns like a human is trajectory of thought pushed by AI companies. They at same time try to humanize AI (it learns like a human would) and dehumanize humans (humans are stochastic parrots anyway). It's if anything a distraction if not straight up anti-human. But you are right that copyright is complex and in the end decided by human (often in court). Consider how code infringement is not about code it…

> Consider how code infringement is not about code itself but about what it does. If you saw somewhat original implementation of something and then you rewrite it in different language by yourself there is high chance its still copyright infringement. Actually if you rewrite it in a different language, you're well on your way to making it an independent expression; (though beware Structure, Sequence and Organization,…

The fact LLMs are generating any images is purely thanks to database of source images that are copyright protected. Its a form of sophisticated automated photobashing. Photobashing is grayzone but often legal because of the other artist doing the (often original) work.

When you prompt for Mijazaki image this image can only exist thanks to his protected work being in database (where he doesnt want to be) otherwise the user wouldnt get Mijazaki image they wanted.

We will see how that all plays out but i think if Mijazaki took this to court there would be solid case on grounds that the resulting images breach the copyright of the source, are not original works and are created with bad intent that goes against protections of original author.

What seems to be current direction is atleast that the resulting images cannot be copyrighted automatically in public domain. Making it difficult to use commercially.

Re: Be a property owner and not a renter on the internet

#249

Post by tonyedgecombe »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #216
liontwist wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if no attribution etc is your personal policy that’s not everyone else’s. The end result is that any authors who care about copyright protection will become less accessible. It’s a gold rush for AI bots to capture the good will of early internet creators before the well runs dry,

Even if no attribution etc is your personal policy that’s not everyone else’s. That's up to the courts. As usual, we will all lose if the copyright maximalists win.

To me it looks like individual creators are the ones most likely to lose.

I was watching an interview with John Warnock (one of the founders of Adobe) and he was proud of the fact that the US went from having 25,000 graphic designers to 2,500,000 largely thanks to software his company created.

I do wonder if we are on the verge of reversing that shift.

Re: Be a property owner and not a renter on the internet

#250

Post by tonyedgecombe »

dend wrote: post #73
liontwist wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if no attribution etc is your personal policy that’s not everyone else’s. The end result is that any authors who care about copyright protection will become less accessible. It’s a gold rush for AI bots to capture the good will of early internet creators before the well runs dry,

+1 My content is still MY content, and I'd prefer that if an entity is going to make money off of it directly (i.e., it's not a person learning how to code from something I wrote but rather a well-funded company pulling my content for their gain), that I at least have some semblance of consent to it. That being said, I think there is no longer a point of crying over spilled milk. The LLM technology is out of the bag,…

Pretty much all of my work has been published on the internet over the last twenty years. Some of it has been commercial, some open source and some that is just for myself.

I’m pretty much done with that now, I doubt I will publish anything online again.

Post reply on HN