Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement
1–10 of 484 posts
Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement
#2The previous infringement case with Anthropic said that while training an AI was transformative and not itself an infringement, pirating works for that purpose still was definitely infringement all by itself. The settlement was $1.5bn, so close to $3k for each of the 500k they pirated, so if Zuckerberg pirated "millions" (plural) it is quite plausible his settlement could be $6bn.
Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement
#3Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement
#4A lot of people would be very pleased if this leads to Zuckerberg getting even the statutory minimum damages ($750?) on each infringement. The previous infringement case with Anthropic said that while training an AI was transformative and not itself an infringement, pirating works for that purpose still was definitely infringement all by itself. The settlement was $1.5bn, so close to $3k for each of the 500k they pir…
Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement
#5Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement
#6I know there's a complaint that AI can verbatim repeat that work. But so can human savants. No one is suing human savants for reading their books.
Producing copyrighted material, of course. Training on copyrighted material... I just don't see it.
EDIT: Making a perfectly valid point, but it's unpopular, so down I go.
Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement
#7I know people really hate AI training on their work - but is it really any different than a human reading it? I know there's a complaint that AI can verbatim repeat that work. But so can human savants. No one is suing human savants for reading their books. Producing copyrighted material, of course. Training on copyrighted material... I just don't see it. EDIT: Making a perfectly valid point, but it's unpopular, so do…
Suppose they did, and some guy was filling stadiums regularly to hear him recite an entire audio book. That would probably get the attention of someone's lawyers.
Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement
#8I know people really hate AI training on their work - but is it really any different than a human reading it? I know there's a complaint that AI can verbatim repeat that work. But so can human savants. No one is suing human savants for reading their books. Producing copyrighted material, of course. Training on copyrighted material... I just don't see it. EDIT: Making a perfectly valid point, but it's unpopular, so do…
No one is asking human savants about what they read 1 million times per day. Suppose they did, and some guy was filling stadiums regularly to hear him recite an entire audio book. That would probably get the attention of someone's lawyers.
If it's illegal for AIs it should be illegal for humans, too. Is that really what you're arguing? It should be illegal for savants to read books?
Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement
#9I would rather Zuckerberg do 6 months in jail and probation than fine Meta.
If this was you or me, we would be in prison for decades and have a fine in the millions. Time for these people to feel consequences.
As someone said, they will probably settle for around 6 billion, that is the same as say a $100 fine for us.
Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement
#10I would rather Zuckerberg do 6 months in jail and probation than fine Meta.
I agree, time to start handing out real punishments, I think 6 months is way to small. If this was you or me, we would be in prison for decades and have a fine in the millions. Time for these people to feel consequences. As someone said, they will probably settle for around 6 billion, that is the same as say a $100 fine for us.
I'm all for strong justice, but you want to imprison an executive for decades for copyright violations?