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

61–70 of 484 posts

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

#61

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

kodt wrote: post #52
swader999 wrote: post #38

I take issue with the use of tense used in this framing. Its not 'infringed' its 'infringing' and to say that it happened is wrong, its happening and happening continuously in these models that are in use. To say a one time payment settles it is missing the whole scope of this theft. Royalties are owed and continuously owed as these models are deployed and doing inference. How is it any different to paying a small pi…

If you steal a book and read it, should you have to pay every time you use the knowledge gained or recall parts of it from memory?

What if you steal a CD and then play it on your radio station each morning?

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

#62

Post by Quarondeau »

qarl wrote: post #47
Quarondeau wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a huge difference in scale. The human mind can only process a limited portion of all works available over a lifetime. Human learning is therefore naturally limited to small-scale reuse, which serves to keep it proportional. A machine training on all copyrighted materials in the world for commercial purposes at an industrial scale makes it disproportionate.

I see that as a distinction - but does it make a difference? If a company hired hundreds of savants, then it would be illegal for them to read books? I don't follow.

It would hardly make a dent. And if you hired hundreds of savants, the knowledge would still be spread over hundreds of separate minds.

And even if we grant that those savants are also very skilled at creating "market substitutes" based on their training that are capable of competing with the original works, their maximum creative output would only be a relatively small number of new works, because they can only work at human speed.

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

#63

Post by j-bos »

masfuerte wrote: post #26
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?

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

Facebook isn't one of the companies that's been pushing for that.

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

#64

Post by ronsor »

swader999 wrote: post #59
ronsor wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Royalties for inference are unrealistic in a way that even royalties for training aren't. The LLaMA models were released openly. Copies exist everywhere in the world. You aren't going to be able to charge someone for running `llama.cpp`; a court order ceases to have practical relevance at that point.

These models can provide citations so I don't see why they can't tick a royalty owed. I'm sure many here could help build this pipeline.

... LLMs cannot reliably provide citations. If you ask for citations, and the model did not use a web search tool, then whatever "citations" you receive are unreliable. Please do not trust these models to be honest. Just because they can discuss a topic doesn't mean they "know" where the knowledge came from in the same way that you don't need to have studied physics to catch a ball.

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

#65

Post by Aurornis »

swader999 wrote: post #59
ronsor wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Royalties for inference are unrealistic in a way that even royalties for training aren't. The LLaMA models were released openly. Copies exist everywhere in the world. You aren't going to be able to charge someone for running `llama.cpp`; a court order ceases to have practical relevance at that point.

These models can provide citations so I don't see why they can't tick a royalty owed. I'm sure many here could help build this pipeline.

First, LLMs do not reliably cite works. They are not looking things up in a database and repeating them. I think this false idea occurs a lot in people who don't understand what LLMs are or how they work.

Second, royalties are not required to cite a source.

Can you imagine how disastrous it would be to everything from news reporting to scientific publishing if that was the case?

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

#66

Post by Lio »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #61
kodt wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you steal a book and read it, should you have to pay every time you use the knowledge gained or recall parts of it from memory?

What if you steal a CD and then play it on your radio station each morning?

Even better, what if you transform that stolen CD into an MP3, so the data isn’t the same as a lossy process was used, then share the MP3 with the world as your own work?

I don’t get why the training process doesn’t count as any other form of transformation but then I’m not a lawyer.

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

#67

Post by qarl »

Quarondeau wrote: post #62
qarl wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see that as a distinction - but does it make a difference? If a company hired hundreds of savants, then it would be illegal for them to read books? I don't follow.

It would hardly make a dent. And if you hired hundreds of savants, the knowledge would still be spread over hundreds of separate minds. And even if we grant that those savants are also very skilled at creating "market substitutes" based on their training that are capable of competing with the original works, their maximum creative output would only be a relatively small number of new works, because they can only work…

Ok - but if a company were able to hire one million savants, you feel it should be illegal, because why?

Can you cite something in the copyright laws themselves that suggest this scale distinction?

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

#69

Post by alex1138 »

alex1138 wrote: post #53
ipython wrote: post #36

Just gonna say... Aaron Swartz faced years of prison time and ultimately decided to take his own life... for downloading scientific journal articles ... to share freely with the world (aka not even profiting from it). But a multi-billion dollar corporation downloading millions of copyrighted creative works so that they can reshape the entire labor market by training a new type of artificial intelligence model on that…

Had Aaron copied Snapchat 5 times the DOJ would've been fine with it all. His fault for not having the foresight

(I'm being sarcastic. Zuck gets rewarded for continually copying Snapchat features into his products)

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

#70

Post by swader999 »

Aurornis wrote: post #65
swader999 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These models can provide citations so I don't see why they can't tick a royalty owed. I'm sure many here could help build this pipeline.

First, LLMs do not reliably cite works. They are not looking things up in a database and repeating them. I think this false idea occurs a lot in people who don't understand what LLMs are or how they work. Second, royalties are not required to cite a source. Can you imagine how disastrous it would be to everything from news reporting to scientific publishing if that was the case?

Yeah well then I want my robot running this crap locally in its brain so I can get it to farm my two acres and haul water for me and I'll unplug from the rest of this nonsense going forward lol.
Post reply on HN