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

171–180 of 484 posts

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

#171

Post by redsocksfan45 »

jryan49 wrote: post #34
qarl wrote: 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…

I had to buy the copyrighted material before reading it... Meta apparently operates in a different legal system than me. That's my issue with it.

[dead]

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

#173

Post by bawolff »

Does it matter? The company's liability would (i assume) not change if the ceo authorized it or some other high level figure authorized it.

The question to answer is, did it happen and if so is this copyright infringement (not covered by fair use), not which company official authorized it.

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

#174

Post by lenerdenator »

esseph wrote: post #111
lenerdenator wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For better or for worse, the idea behind incorporation is that you, as an owner of part or all of the company, are separated from it financially and legally in most circumstances. Zuckerberg may be CEO, majority shareholder, and on the board of Meta, but he didn't break copyright law, Meta did. So if there were to be a consequence, Meta would pay out the fine. Not sure how you jail a company. Now, in a company with a…

> Not sure how you jail a company. You jail the CEO and the others will stand up and take note. "But they'll complain" who gives a fuck.

In this case, they'll be right. That, again, is the purpose of incorporation. It's also the same concept that keeps someone from emptying out all of your personal bank accounts if your small business gets sued.

What you'd need is something that either removes that protection past a certain amount of value, or, to tell entities like Meta - which are basically sole proprietorships with window dressing - that they're not entitled to the protection of incorporation if they don't enact a real corporate governance model.

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

#175

Post by jryan49 »

qarl wrote: post #35
jryan49 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to buy the copyrighted material before reading it... Meta apparently operates in a different legal system than me. That's my issue with it.

Yes, I have no objection to that part. It's the arguments that training itself is the problem. Sarah Silverman as the most prominent example.

I mean the act of reproducing the copyrighted material is what is illegal. LLMs I've used for coding has outputted exact copyrights for code verbatim into my code before. When that happens it feels kind of fishy to be honest.

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

#176

Post by lenerdenator »

Telaneo wrote: post #155
lenerdenator wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For better or for worse, the idea behind incorporation is that you, as an owner of part or all of the company, are separated from it financially and legally in most circumstances. Zuckerberg may be CEO, majority shareholder, and on the board of Meta, but he didn't break copyright law, Meta did. So if there were to be a consequence, Meta would pay out the fine. Not sure how you jail a company. Now, in a company with a…

> Zuckerberg may be CEO, majority shareholder, and on the board of Meta, but he didn't break copyright law, Meta did. I'm still stuck on how Z telling Meta (or the relevant people at Meta, whatever) to go out there and do illegal shit doesn't make a court say that he's functionally done said illegal shit, or at least encouraged the company to do, and that he should thus be liable for that. It's not like there's much…

So, I'm not a lawyer.

I don't even play one on TV.

I wonder if, somehow, you could use or extend RICO statutes to cover this sort of thing.

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

#178

Post by solid_fuel »

zx8080 wrote: post #177

Can someone explain why are we reading this instead of "Meta was fined for copyright infrigement" news?

In 2024, voters signaled that they don't care about corruption when they reelected the most corrupt administration in American history. Since then, there has been a widespread understanding that the rich will not face consequences in this country. For example, take a look at the Trump administration's suppression of the Epstein files. Or the Trump families cryptocurrency schemes. Or the ridiculous ballroom.

Anyway, the point is - there will be no justice until the citizens of the united states demand it.

Post reply on HN