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

X changes its terms to bar training of AI models using its content

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 217 posts

Re: X changes its terms to bar training of AI models using its content

#61

Post by loudmax »

blibble wrote: post #36
gausswho wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does surprise me that we haven't seen nations revise their copyright window back to something sensible in a play to seed their own nascent AI industry. The American founding fathers thought 20 years was enough. I'm sure there'd be repercussions in the banking system, but at some point it might be worth the trade.

they can't a 50 year minimum is part of the berne convention, which itself is as close to a universal law as humanity has (even North Korea is a signatory)

The current US copyright duration is 70 years after the life of the author. This is absolutely bonkers. 50 years from publication would be a significant improvement.

50 years ago was 1975. If copyright were limited to 50 years, we'd be looking at all of the Beatles works being in the public domain. We'd be midway though Led Zeppelin, and a lot of the best work from Pink Floyd and the Rolling Stones.

Also, Superman, Batman, and Spider-Man. Disney would still profit from the MCU films which they produced in the 2010's, but they couldn't stop you from releasing your own Batman vs Spider-Man story.

The Harry Potter books would still belong to JK Rowling, but the Narnia stories would be available for all.

The Godfather 1 and 2 would be in the public domain, as would be original Star Trek TV show, and we'd be coming up on Star Wars pretty soon.

If there were no copyright protection, these works wouldn't have been created. It is good that Paul McCartney and George Lucas and JK Rowling have profited from their creative output. It would be okay if they only profited for the first 50 years. Nobody is counting on revenue over half a century in the future when they create a work of art today.

This is our culture. It should belong to all of us.

Re: X changes its terms to bar training of AI models using its content

#63

Post by vouaobrasil »

echelon wrote: post #59
vouaobrasil wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social media should do it to set a legal precedent. > We need regulations to limit the power grabs. Train all you like, but don't dare try to constrain to your walled gardens. No, no one should train, period.

> No, no one should train, period. I get that you have your own opinion, but I'm personally tired of living in the butter-churning era and would prefer that this all went a bit faster. I want my real time super high fidelity holo sim, all of my chores to be automatically done, protein folding, drug discovery. The life extension, P = NP future. No more incrementalism. If the universe only happens once, and we're only…

There is already a beautiful, exciting world out there full of animals and plants and we don't need AI or some computer crap to experience it. The problem is, creating all this AI and advanced technology is directly crushing that world.

Re: X changes its terms to bar training of AI models using its content

#64

Post by jfim »

loudmax wrote: post #61
blibble wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they can't a 50 year minimum is part of the berne convention, which itself is as close to a universal law as humanity has (even North Korea is a signatory)

The current US copyright duration is 70 years after the life of the author. This is absolutely bonkers. 50 years from publication would be a significant improvement. 50 years ago was 1975. If copyright were limited to 50 years, we'd be looking at all of the Beatles works being in the public domain. We'd be midway though Led Zeppelin, and a lot of the best work from Pink Floyd and the Rolling Stones. Also, Superman, B…

> Disney would still profit from the MCU films which they produced in the 2010's, but they couldn't stop you from releasing your own Batman vs Spider-Man story.

Wouldn't they still have a trademark on those characters though?

Re: X changes its terms to bar training of AI models using its content

#65

Post by soulofmischief »

SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #58
soulofmischief wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is definitely the responsibility of anyone suing someone who trained a model on copyrighted data to prove that it isn't fair use, they have to show how it violated law, and while it's in the best interest of those organizations to make things easier for the court by showing why it is fair use, they are technically innocent until proven guilty. Accordingly, anyone on the internet who wants to make comments about ho…

You've got it backwards. It's on the defendant to prove that their use is fair. The plaintiff has to prove that they actually own the copyright, and that it covers the work they're claiming was infringed, and may try to refute any fair-use arguments the defense raises, but if the defense doesn't raise any then the use won't be found fair.

It's true that the process is copyright strike/lawsuit -> appeal, but like I said, it's in their best interests to just prove that it's fair use because otherwise the judge might not properly consider all facts, only hear one side of the story and thus make a bad judgement about whether or not it is fair use. If anything, I'm just being pedantic, but we do ultimately agree here I think.

Re: X changes its terms to bar training of AI models using its content

#67

Post by blibble »

ronsor wrote: post #57
blibble wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this would void the copyrights of your citizens and companies essentially forever

If enough "relevant" countries do it, that either won't happen or won't matter. If the U.S. ditches it, no one is going to do much more than throw a brief fit.

the US is the main beneficiary of copyright law...

Re: X changes its terms to bar training of AI models using its content

#69

Post by dyauspitr »

delichon wrote: post #3

> “You shall not and you shall not attempt to (or allow others to) […] use the X API or X Content to fine-tune or train a foundation or frontier model,” it reads. If I have a service where a user enters any URL, like a tweet from X, and the service translates it, then if the user approves of the translation I train a translation model on that, does that violate this term?

If you don’t want an LLM to view it don’t put it on the public internet.

Re: X changes its terms to bar training of AI models using its content

#70

Post by Teever »

blibble wrote: post #36
gausswho wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does surprise me that we haven't seen nations revise their copyright window back to something sensible in a play to seed their own nascent AI industry. The American founding fathers thought 20 years was enough. I'm sure there'd be repercussions in the banking system, but at some point it might be worth the trade.

they can't a 50 year minimum is part of the berne convention, which itself is as close to a universal law as humanity has (even North Korea is a signatory)

Europe has recently introduce a law[0] that allows them to suspend IP protections as a punitive response to coercive economic actions by bad actors.

> The procedure is activated by the European Commission submitting a request to the Council of the European Union.[2] After a period of negotiation with the country performing the coercion, the European Council can decide to implement "response measures" such as customs duties, limiting access to programs and financial markets, and intellectual property rights restrictions.[2][4] These restrictions can be applied to states, companies, or individuals.[4]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Coercion_Instrument

Post reply on HN