351–360 of 471 posts
Models absorbed the pirated content. Now Meta is distributing those models. Is that considered distribution?
For that argument I believe the question becomes "is the output of a model considered a derivative work of the training data?" https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"distribution is the act protected by copyright" was the rule all along in many (non-US) jurisdictions, not an American so not sure about how the US does things. This is why you often see people getting fines for torrenting (Germany is extremely notorious for this for example), but fines for using Usenet, IPTV, streaming or book download services are a lot more rare (which doesn't mean they're nonexistent)! Operating…
> something like setting a 1 byte per second cap on uploads You generally can't set a client to 0B/s (as zero usually means “no limit”) but I'm not sure a good¹ lawyer on the other side would let you get away with claiming glacial distribution is not still distribution. At 1Kbyte/sec (I don't know a client off the top of my head that has control down to the single byte) a 50MByte file (not unusual for a book with ill…
Most commonly used clients won't let you turn off seeding, but you can indeed limit the upstream to a really low value. You can also, at the same time, seed a ton of different things, preferably quite large, to saturate your upload and make it statistically improbable to fully send a copy of any single file.
Now, based on my feeling and cases I've seen in my country I'd say that the judge would make a claim that the sheer fact of making these files available is enough.
Moreover, there were rulings stating that even if you don't have the whole torrent on your disk, but only few fragments you are already in violation.
For me, it make sense, as when a company gets caught red handed they are judged based on the inventory of stolen programs they have, not an actual usage of them.
Lastly, here in an european country, consuming pirated media (books, movies, music, etc.) is not a crime. However there are plenty of caveats:
- you can't share it, so torrenting, as mentioned, might be illegal; getting a copy of a movie on a hard drive from a friend only puts him in jepardy
- it has to be personal use, so watching it alone or with your wife is ok, but playing stolen music in a club is not; commercial use is strictly forbiden ("commercial" as in "commercial licence", so usage in context of a company, so facebook case here is strictly in violation)
- it has to be a media that's already been published somewhere (cinema, television, streaming service); pirating leaks and prereleases is strictly forbiden
- pirating software is whole different animal, since now it's not a copyright, but a breach of licence agreement
You can think about it as owning a tiny portion of "soft drugs" (like marijuana), which is legal in some countries. Selling is not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"distribution is the act protected by copyright" was the rule all along in many (non-US) jurisdictions, not an American so not sure about how the US does things. This is why you often see people getting fines for torrenting (Germany is extremely notorious for this for example), but fines for using Usenet, IPTV, streaming or book download services are a lot more rare (which doesn't mean they're nonexistent)! Operating…
> "distribution is the act protected by copyright" was the rule all along in many (non-US) jurisdictions, not an American so not sure about how the US does things. I am pretty sure this is false. It is just that distribution carries heavier sentences and is easier to discover, not unlike with drug dealing. It is not legal, anywhere, to (for example) borrow a DVD from someone, copy it, and give the original back. In s…
If the DVD doesn't have strong DRM (which is pretty rare, CSS counts as strong DRM) you are allowed to make a private copy in Finland. There is a levy on various storage mediums to compensate private copying. I believe there are similar laws in other countries based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy
I'm not 100% sure if strictly downloading from illegal source makes downloader liable for damages, as far as I know in all court cases there was seeding involved (in Finland).
Of course the levy is somewhat questionable these days since pretty much everything has strong DRM (as bar is very low) and thus you are not allowed to make copies. The authors who protect their work with strong DRM still get part of the levies though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With Musk in the White House (who has similar interests) that might actually happen.
I don't know Musk but why would he make this happen? He's for corporate interests is he not?
Actually this is something that has always perplexed me about corporations that want to meddle in our government. Obviously they must know that it is going to involve the government following the interest of… some corporation. The voters are pretty fickle and having the government work for your competition seems like a pretty rough spot.
I guess it is like a prisoner’s dilemma type thing or something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google doesn't "vaccuum up" anything. Every site indexed by Google is still available without using Google at all. They are _copying_ information, not moving or removing it.
And how does downloading a torrent differ from that?
If anything, the law should require that they seed their training data so that the competitive landscape converges on actual technological innovation and not moat building through data destruction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And yet somehow humanity survived for tens or hundreds of thousands of years without such standards Narrator: "Most humans didn't survive past year five due to preventable illnesses and food born contamination, the humans' ancestor's infant mortality rate was rather high before the age of food safety and soap".
> Narrator Of what? Where are you getting this from?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still own my content. Google links to it and sends me traffic. We both win. This sort of relationship is not present when my content is anonymously fed into a training model intended to be used to extract users before they are sent to me. And, yes, I am aware Google has pulled some cute shit with this definition, and when they do it then it's also bad.
> Google links to it and sends me traffic Used to, but more recently it's probably LLM agents using Google not people. And even if it's not yet, it will be. Last time I searched for something on Google it messed up so bad I quickly returned to GPT-4o+search.
The answer to bad products is not to throw away the idea of people getting to control their own content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> something like setting a 1 byte per second cap on uploads You generally can't set a client to 0B/s (as zero usually means “no limit”) but I'm not sure a good¹ lawyer on the other side would let you get away with claiming glacial distribution is not still distribution. At 1Kbyte/sec (I don't know a client off the top of my head that has control down to the single byte) a 50MByte file (not unusual for a book with ill…
> I'm not sure a good¹ lawyer on the other side would let you get away with claiming Fortunately that’s not how courts work. I’m not familiar with the case, but it’s possible setting a 1 byte per second limit showed intent to not distribute.