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

Libogc (Wii homebrew library) discovered to contain code stolen from RTEMS

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 169 posts

Re: Libogc (Wii homebrew library) discovered to contain code stolen from RTEMS

#151

Post by saagarjha »

jillyboel wrote: post #131
saagarjha wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You got examples and didn't like them. That's fine, that just means people won't indulge you anymore.

Can you clarify what examples of harm have been provided? Disrespecting someone is not harming them, if that is what you're getting at? Your comment is quite disrespectful towards my genuine question which you refuse to answer, and yet, I am not harmed. In fact, I am amused, since it's clear you don't have a real answer and are just resorting to ad hominem attacks instead.

No, I'm going to let 'jchw do it for me, because they are more patient than I would have been and make me thankful I didn't go down that route. I don't really want to engage with someone whose argument is "there's no harm because the harm is plagiarism and according to OpenAI plagiarism is OK".

Re: Libogc (Wii homebrew library) discovered to contain code stolen from RTEMS

#152

Post by armada651 »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #136
armada651 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Copyright as a whole should be abolished. Why is abolishment always the first reaction to any system with flaws? There are multi-billion dollar companies who would love to see copyright abolished, especially right now so that they can profit from artists with reckless abandon without giving them so much as a penny. Copyright provides an incentive for artists to dedicate their life to their creative endeavors by pro…

> Why is abolishment always the first reaction to any system with flaws? Because we're sick of it. We're tired of pretending this stuff is artificially scarce while they rob us of our rights. The reality is intellectual property is fiction and public domain is its natural state. We'd like to start living in reality. Nearly two hundred years ago, one man warned everyone this would happen. https://www.thepublicdomain.o…

> The original social contract was we'd all pretend for a few years that intellectual works couldn't be trivially copied so that creators could turn a profit. And then, and this part is the key, and then the works would enter the public domain.

I agree and we should go back to that system, but that was still copyright. If you're calling for abolishment you give artists 0 years to turn a profit.

Re: Libogc (Wii homebrew library) discovered to contain code stolen from RTEMS

#153

Post by philistine »

ranger_danger wrote: post #144
philistine wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those have nothing to do with losing copyright. Forgetting to file for copyright, sure. But not losing copyright you have. If you have standing and you don’t sue for lack of money, of course the infringer gets away with it! Your right was not extinguished though. You don’t have the right to bludgeon others, you have the exclusive right to copy.

Semantics... I consider the rightsholder generally acknowledging any infringement but not doing anything about any of it, combined with other people getting away with infringing, as functionally equivalent to "losing" the copyright. You might disagree but that's okay.

> Semantics...

Try telling that to a lawyer. Not enforcing your exclusive privileges does not extinguish your rights. People don't lose the right to vote if the government refuses to enforce election fraud.

You are wrong in the legal sense, and copyright is a very legal matter.

Re: Libogc (Wii homebrew library) discovered to contain code stolen from RTEMS

#154

Post by ranger_danger »

philistine wrote: post #153
ranger_danger wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Semantics... I consider the rightsholder generally acknowledging any infringement but not doing anything about any of it, combined with other people getting away with infringing, as functionally equivalent to "losing" the copyright. You might disagree but that's okay.

> Semantics... Try telling that to a lawyer. Not enforcing your exclusive privileges does not extinguish your rights. People don't lose the right to vote if the government refuses to enforce election fraud. You are wrong in the legal sense, and copyright is a very legal matter.

I think you are assuming that by "lose" I meant indefinitely, and for any and all future cases... but I explicitly defined what I meant, which was the cases where the rightsholder was made aware of an infringement, chose not to litigate, and then the statute expired, leading to a functional equivalence of losing the copyright in that one instance. I think a lawyer would appreciate the detail, and I don't think I am on trial for my own semantics here either, so I'm not sure what the actual disagreement is, besides that you don't like the way I used the word "lose".

Re: Libogc (Wii homebrew library) discovered to contain code stolen from RTEMS

#155

Post by ranger_danger »

theshackleford wrote: post #150
ranger_danger wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might convince a judge, sure, although it's still possible to fake the evidence... but I would argue the vast majority of people who claim to have clean-room RE'd something absolutely did not go through anything close to this process.

> I would argue With what evidence?

I think when someone fails to produce any evidence of a clean-room process being followed when they claim it's clean-room, is probably a good indicator. Yea you can call that "trust me bro" if you want, I won't be upset.

Re: Libogc (Wii homebrew library) discovered to contain code stolen from RTEMS

#156

Post by matheusmoreira »

armada651 wrote: post #152
matheusmoreira wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is abolishment always the first reaction to any system with flaws? Because we're sick of it. We're tired of pretending this stuff is artificially scarce while they rob us of our rights. The reality is intellectual property is fiction and public domain is its natural state. We'd like to start living in reality. Nearly two hundred years ago, one man warned everyone this would happen. https://www.thepublicdomain.o…

> The original social contract was we'd all pretend for a few years that intellectual works couldn't be trivially copied so that creators could turn a profit. And then, and this part is the key, and then the works would enter the public domain. I agree and we should go back to that system, but that was still copyright. If you're calling for abolishment you give artists 0 years to turn a profit.

Sounds good. Let them have zero years. Let them have negative years. Let AI be trained on their works, then leak the models so that it cannot ever be controlled or undone. There is no compromising with monopolists. We gave them a generous social contract and all what we got back was abuse and greed and rent seeking and moved goalposts. You're telling me this time it will be different? Yeah, right. I say abolish copyright straight up.

The address I cited contains the most reasonable defense of copyright ever argued: the only alternative is patronage. Artists can get paid before they work via patrons and sponsors, or they can get paid after they work via selling artificially scarce copies. Macaulay argues patronage is poison for the integrity of art because nobles only fund self-aggrandizing works.

He's not wrong but it's 2025 and technology has already solved that problem. We have patronage and crowdfunding services that allow people to raise money from the public at large. His argument no longer holds. An alternative to copyright exists. I say let artists create their patreons and their kickstarters so that they can get paid before they labor over their creations, and let things enter the public domain the very second they are published.

Re: Libogc (Wii homebrew library) discovered to contain code stolen from RTEMS

#157

Post by thescriptkiddie »

ThatPlayer wrote: post #91
thescriptkiddie wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or even do a cover song of "Beat It" entirely with throat singing. Copyright would still apply. bad example, in this specific case copyright would actually not apply

Could you explain why not? That's exactly the kind of thing a mechanical license would give: the right to cover a song. The difference with music is by law they have to let you obain a compulsory mechanical license.

oh i misunderstood, i was thinking about live performances. unfortunately you do technically have to obtain a license from the composer in order to sell a recording of a cover.

Re: Libogc (Wii homebrew library) discovered to contain code stolen from RTEMS

#158

Post by thescriptkiddie »

ykonstant wrote: post #124
thescriptkiddie wrote: post #83

sorry if this is an unpopular opinion, but i have absolutely zero problems with them reverse-engineering nintendo code, nor do i really care that much about GPL violations against a project called "Real-Time Executive for Missile Systems"

The power of a legal obligation like the GPL lies in its ability to bind equally people you like and people you don't; and in contrast to popular belief, social attitudes (like yours) do influence the courtrooms' disposition towards such laws—they certainly influence the lawmakers passing amendments and clarifications. If we, the relevant community, do not think much of GPL violations when they hurt people we dislike…

very noble, but when your enemies are the harlem globetrotters, firm commitment to principles just makes you the washington generals

Re: Libogc (Wii homebrew library) discovered to contain code stolen from RTEMS

#159

Post by jillyboel »

jchw wrote: post #147
jillyboel wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This falls under the "two wrongs don't make a right" adage, I'd argue. (To clarify... I agree, at least insofar as LLM training is plagiarism.) The argument is that so far society at large seems to have decided that what bigtech has done with LLMs is not wrong. Everyone is happily using it, pretty much every company is touting their new "AI" features, and lawsuits haven't gained any traction. So if it's not wrong f…

> The argument is that so far society at large seems to have decided that what bigtech has done with LLMs is not wrong. Everyone is happily using it, pretty much every company is touting their new "AI" features, and lawsuits haven't gained any traction. So if it's not wrong for an LLM, I'd argue it's not wrong for a human, either. Right, because if one wrong thing is allowed, we should allow... Other wrong things. Th…

> Right, because if one wrong thing is allowed, we should allow... Other wrong things.

Unless you think LLMs deserve more rights than actual flesh and blood humans, yes. Either that or get bigtech to stop what they're doing, but we both know that's not going to happen.

> Okay. Well I feel sympathy for the poor developers who put time into making a free open source tool that brought many people joy now having their work ripped off without credit because I guess it's okay if LLM training is legal for some reason.

If LLMs get to do it, so do humans. If humans don't get to do it, then LLMs don't either. Society has embraced LLMs and bigtech is not going to give up their new toy, so it has to become okay for humans, even if you think this is unfortunate.

> I mean, honest to God, how much rationalizing are we going to go through here?

The same amount as people go through to excuse legal bullying.

> It's okay because LLMs?

Again, humans deserve more rights than machines, not less. So apparently, yes.

> It's okay because it's free so that means plagiarism is fine?

Yeah. No one was hurt, not even financially. You can think it's distasteful, that's fine.

> Copyright licenses are "made up nonsense"?

Yup, only serves to make the rich richer anyway.

Re: Libogc (Wii homebrew library) discovered to contain code stolen from RTEMS

#160

Post by jillyboel »

saagarjha wrote: post #151
jillyboel wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you clarify what examples of harm have been provided? Disrespecting someone is not harming them, if that is what you're getting at? Your comment is quite disrespectful towards my genuine question which you refuse to answer, and yet, I am not harmed. In fact, I am amused, since it's clear you don't have a real answer and are just resorting to ad hominem attacks instead.

No, I'm going to let 'jchw do it for me, because they are more patient than I would have been and make me thankful I didn't go down that route. I don't really want to engage with someone whose argument is "there's no harm because the harm is plagiarism and according to OpenAI plagiarism is OK".

> the harm is plagiarism

How is plagiarism harmful outside of an academic setting? Is it illegal? Who is hurt by it? In what way? Does this supposed harm outweigh the benefit it brings to the rest of society? And, mostly unrelated, why are you okay with bigtech doing it, but not a mere human?

Just admit you realized that you don't actually have an argument. It's a simple question, and you're not able to answer it.

It's okay to admit you were wrong. It shows growth.

Post reply on HN