Live data from Hacker News

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

variety.com

21–30 of 484 posts

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

#21
post #9

I 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.

[deleted]

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

#22
> a Meta spokesperson said, “AI is powering transformative innovations, productivity and creativity for individuals and companies, and courts have rightly found that training AI on copyrighted material can qualify as fair use. We will fight this lawsuit aggressively.”

> Authors have sued AI companies for copyright infringement before - and lost.

So, basically nothing will come out of this

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

#23
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 would prefer a harsher punishment, but I would begrudgingly accept throwing him in jail for decades.

I always heard that criminals should be thrown in jail, it's time we started doing it to the real criminals.

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

#24
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 all for strong justice, but you want to imprison an executive for decades for copyright violations?

They stole the life's work of millions of people.

In less civilized times, they likely would have been drawn and quartered by strong horses, and had their limbs drug to the 4 corners of the continent as a warning to anyone else that would consider doing it again.

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

#25
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If copyright law doesn't extend to the works being used for training, why should it extend to the model that is produced as a result? AI model creators have set up an ethical scenario where the right thing to do is ignore copyright laws when it comes to AI, which includes model use. It might never be legal, but it has become ethical to pirate models, distill them against ToS, etc.

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

#26
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?

American executives have been pushing to criminalise copyright infringement for decades, and America has worked hard to pressure countries all round the world to do this as part of trade deals. There is, for example, a Brit serving an eleven year sentence right now *.

Why should Zuckerberg be exempt?

* https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65697595

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

#27
post #2

A 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…

For context, his net worth is ~$220 billion.

And meta's worth is much more than that. He's not personally paying.

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

#28
post #6

I 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…

It’s different.

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

#29
post #2

A 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…

Nothing will happen to him/Meta while DJT is president.

He bought the best protection around for breaking the law.

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

#30

> a Meta spokesperson said, “AI is powering transformative innovations, productivity and creativity for individuals and companies, and courts have rightly found that training AI on copyrighted material can qualify as fair use. We will fight this lawsuit aggressively.” > Authors have sued AI companies for copyright infringement before - and lost. So, basically nothing will come out of this

they'll litigate how meta acquired those materials to train. you can do whatever you want with a book after it's in your house. but how did it get there?
Post reply on HN