Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
OpenAI fails to deliver opt-out system for photographers
151–160 of 166 posts
Re: OpenAI fails to deliver opt-out system for photographers
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Especially given that only HN'ers are 100% certain that training a model is infringement. In the real world, this is not a settled question. Why worry about obeying laws that don't even exist yet? This is exactly why people are against it. Your argument is that there is no definitive law. Therefore the creators of the data you scrape to train, and their wishes are irrelevant. If the motivation was to help humanity,…
Your argument is that there is no definitive law. Therefore the creators of the data you scrape to train, and their wishes are irrelevant. Correct, that is the position of the law. Here in America, we don't take the position, held in many other countries, that everything not explicitly permitted is forbidden. This is a good thing. If the motivation was to help humanity, they’d think twice about stepping on the toes o…
>Until then, no one's toes are being stepped on. Everybody whose work was used to train the models still holds the same rights to that work that they held before.
And yet artists don’t feel like their work should be used for training.
I’m not sure how you can argue that the intentions are unknowable, when clearly you and the AI companies don’t care about the people whose work they have to use to train their models and these people’s wishes. Motivation is greed.
Re: OpenAI fails to deliver opt-out system for photographers
#153Shocking news about the company that fraudulently left "open" in its name after ripping off donors. I think the headline is too generous here. More accurate would be "OpenAI neglects to deliver opt-out system..."
Sorry, who did they rip off? All their investors stand to profit handsomely (if they live).
Are you saying that donors to their "non-profit" received shares in the now-for-profit enterprise?
And if so, do you have a citation for that?
Re: OpenAI fails to deliver opt-out system for photographers
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Copyright doesn't prevent anyone from "using" a person's work. It should. The 'free and open internet' is finished because nobody is going to want to subject their IP to rampant laundering that makes someone else rich. Tragedy of the commons.
I can see this both ways. For the sake of argument, please explain why using IP to train an AI is evil, but using the same IP to train a human is good. Note that humans use someone else's IP to get rich all the time. E.g. Doctors reading medical textbooks.
I never used the word evil.
That said, machines don't have natural rights, and you don't get to use them to violate mine.
Re: OpenAI fails to deliver opt-out system for photographers
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your argument is that there is no definitive law. Therefore the creators of the data you scrape to train, and their wishes are irrelevant. Correct, that is the position of the law. Here in America, we don't take the position, held in many other countries, that everything not explicitly permitted is forbidden. This is a good thing. If the motivation was to help humanity, they’d think twice about stepping on the toes o…
> Until then, no one's toes are being stepped on. Everybody whose work was used to train the models still holds the same rights to that work that they held before. And yet artists don’t feel like their work should be used for training. I’m not sure how you can argue that the intentions are unknowable, when clearly you and the AI companies don’t care about the people whose work they have to use to train their models a…
And yet artists don’t feel like their work should be used for training.
The law isn't really all that interested in how "artists feel." Neither am I, as you've surmised. The artists don't care how I feel, so it would be kind of weird for me to hold any other position.
In any case, copyright maximalism impoverishes us all.
Re: OpenAI fails to deliver opt-out system for photographers
#156In my mental imagery this is a situation that any advancing civilization in the universe should eventually run into. There will be all kinds of materials from the laborious and expensive to the effortless and "I was the first" or some other entitlement. It all boils down to having or not having such automatons. I'm sure there have been plenty who, like us with our books, have successfully denied progress. I'm also su…
> We, with our books, have successfully prevented people from educating themselves with amazing implications Que? No, really... what?
I mean how we, in stead of setting the books free, keep them in cages and sell tickets.
It seems to me any civilization in the history of the cosmos will inevitably reach a stage where they have choose to make knowledge available in order to solve problems.
One should only have to type the title of a book then get to browse around for a bit. Send a link to someone etc
Anything else is suicidal nonsense.
Tax hard working people to pay to defend dead peoples pixels from copying?
No one knows who or what an author is if there even is one. If I generate or write by hand all word combinations I don't get to own them.
Enforcement is much to expensive for normal people if one even notices the copying. They just get to pay for it.
An elaborate scheme in order to not solve problems, not innovate and not progress.
Re: OpenAI fails to deliver opt-out system for photographers
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When has something like this ever happened? Anything that used to be freely available but no longer is. Once upon a time Laudanum (tincture of opium) used to be the OTC painkiller of choice. In slightly more recent times, there's asbestos. In certain locales, gambling. There's countries that have reigned in lootboxes. > It feels like legislature exists to make money happy. Come on now, it doesn't just "feel" that w…
A single consumable is easy to ban. Computer binaries widely distributed isn't.
Doesn't seem too different from the lootboxes example.
Re: OpenAI fails to deliver opt-out system for photographers
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dont think you can exclaim away fair use protections. Otherwise everyone already would.
> I dont think you can exclaim away fair use protections. "Copyright doesn't stop me from X" is different from "copyright lets me do X even though I agreed to a contract saying I wouldn't." (I have many problems with modern click/shrink-wrap, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms and I'm just trying to "fight fire with fire" here.) If the average ToS has no force, then HN is currently infringing on my copyright by…
Theres no valid TOS provided to a human to read when I am scraping the entire internet. I dont think wget can sign a contract?
Has anyone managed to hit Google or Yahoo with a TOS violation?
Re: OpenAI fails to deliver opt-out system for photographers
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its clearly fair use regardless of what trump does.
It isn't clearly anything since there are dozens of lawsuits about it going on right now.
Other than the bloke who tried to make his LLM the author, I havent seen any lawsuits uphold your point of view.
There was a great article posted here last year rounding up all the various courts who upheld ownership for prompters of LLM output, including China (Possibly twice)
If recombining data from images in a way that theres not a single trace of any original violates fair use, then fair use ceases to exist. There is hardly a fairer use. Any existing fair use outcome uses actual recognizable elements of the original work. There isn't really 2 directions on this. The damage that success for the anti ai folk would have against IP law is tremendous.
Re: OpenAI fails to deliver opt-out system for photographers
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I dont think you can exclaim away fair use protections. "Copyright doesn't stop me from X" is different from "copyright lets me do X even though I agreed to a contract saying I wouldn't." (I have many problems with modern click/shrink-wrap, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms and I'm just trying to "fight fire with fire" here.) If the average ToS has no force, then HN is currently infringing on my copyright by…
Theres no valid TOS provided to a human to read when I am scraping the entire internet. I dont think wget can sign a contract? Has anyone managed to hit Google or Yahoo with a TOS violation?
Unclear.
There was hiQ Labs v. LinkedIn but that focused on whether it was unauthorized access under the CFAA.
In X Corp. v. Bright Data Ltd., a quick skim suggests ExTwitter's ToS lost because (A) it wasn't really the owner of the content and (B) they couldn't easily show harm.
IANAL again, but for personal blog, (A) is unlikely to apply, and (B) could be shown if ArtTheft Inc. starts causing legal fees by threatening the blogger for exercising the re-licensing in the ToS.