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

Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

variety.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 484 posts

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#11

Post by SahAssar »

qarl wrote: post #8
nancyminusone wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't see your point. The problem is producing the copyrighted work, not processing it beforehand. 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?

I don't think anyone is arguing that the consumption is illegal. It's the reproduction that is illegal.

Read a book, that's fine. Write a book, that's fine. Read a book and then write a book that is 99.9% the same as the book that you read and sell it for profit without a license from the original author, that's infringement.

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#14

Post by qarl »

SahAssar wrote: post #11
qarl wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see your point. The problem is producing the copyrighted work, not processing it beforehand. 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?

I don't think anyone is arguing that the consumption is illegal. It's the reproduction that is illegal. Read a book, that's fine. Write a book, that's fine. Read a book and then write a book that is 99.9% the same as the book that you read and sell it for profit without a license from the original author, that's infringement.

No, if you read the article, the point is in the training, not the reproduction.

That's what all these lawsuits are about - it's the training not the reproduction. I already agreed in my first comment that the reproduction is off limits.

In this case, it appears that Meta torrented illegal copies of the work to do the training. Obviously that's bad. But conflating that with training itself doesn't follow.

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#15

Post by AlotOfReading »

karanbhangui wrote: post #10
jmclnx wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This comment could get its own DSM classification for how insane it is. I'm all for strong justice, but you want to imprison an executive for decades for copyright violations?

The non-strawman way to interpret the parent comment is that they want them to be treated the same as normal copyright violators. Jail is a common result of (criminal) copyright prosecution, with 44% of convicted offenders being imprisoned, averaging 25 months [0].

Now, I personally find the idea of imprisoning people for copyright offenses horrific, but I don't think it's remotely insane that someone else might come to that conclusion, given that we broadly accept it as a society.

[0] https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pu...

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#16

Post by ginko »

karanbhangui wrote: post #10
jmclnx wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This comment could get its own DSM classification for how insane it is. I'm all for strong justice, but you want to imprison an executive for decades for copyright violations?

Is this controversial? Executives should be held liable, certainly moreso than just regular people sharing files.

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#18

Post by rpdillon »

karanbhangui wrote: post #10
jmclnx wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This comment could get its own DSM classification for how insane it is. I'm all for strong justice, but you want to imprison an executive for decades for copyright violations?

I'm gonna have to go dig up the link, but isn't there a guy that Nintendo basically has on indentured servitude for the rest of his life?

Ah, found it:

>In April 2023, a 54-year-old programmer named Gary Bowser was released from prison having served 14 months of a 40-month sentence. Good behaviour reduced time behind bars, but now his options are limited. For a while he was crashing on a friend’s couch in Toronto. The weekly physical therapy sessions, which he needs to ease chronic pain, were costing hundreds of dollars every week, and he didn’t have a job. And soon, he would need to start sending cheques to Nintendo. Bowser owes the makers of Super Mario $14.5m (£11.5m), and he’s probably going to spend the rest of his life paying it back.

I'm not even a tiny bit supportive, but there is precedent.

https://www.theguardian.com/games/2024/feb/01/the-man-who-ow...

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#19

Post by jacques_chester »

karanbhangui wrote: post #10
jmclnx wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This comment could get its own DSM classification for how insane it is. I'm all for strong justice, but you want to imprison an executive for decades for copyright violations?

There aren't enough things an executive can go to jail for.

Fines don't do anything to deter bad behavior. Either:

* The company pays

* They pay and the company mysteriously increases next year's comp / grants a "loan" / etc

* D&O insurer pays

In all three cases the money comes out of the shareholders' hides. It provides zero personal deterrence. The payoff matrix, as seen by a sociopath, makes it rational to always defect against the common good.

The only punishment that can really focus attention is physical imprisonment in a facility they can't choose.

SOX did this for financial reporting and gee shucks it turned out executives can follow the law after all!

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#20

Post by yorwba »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #15
karanbhangui wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment could get its own DSM classification for how insane it is. I'm all for strong justice, but you want to imprison an executive for decades for copyright violations?

The non-strawman way to interpret the parent comment is that they want them to be treated the same as normal copyright violators. Jail is a common result of (criminal) copyright prosecution, with 44% of convicted offenders being imprisoned, averaging 25 months [0]. Now, I personally find the idea of imprisoning people for copyright offenses horrific, but I don't think it's remotely insane that someone else might come…

From [0]: "In fiscal year 2017, there were 80 copyright/trademark infringement offenders who accounted for 0.1% of all offenders sentenced under the guidelines." This is such a low number that I assume most prosecuted cases are settled without ever making it to sentencing, or alternatively copyright infringement is just hardly ever prosecuted criminally at all.
Post reply on HN