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

231–240 of 484 posts

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

#231

Post by 2ndorderthought »

IAmLiterallyAB wrote: post #225
2ndorderthought wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool cool cool. So all the code and data you send to anthropic and chatgpt should be mass distributable to forward other peoples arts and science? All your meeting notes with ai summarizers, slack chats with bots? Might as well put your entire company and all plans for it on github mit licensed. Ill take a peek, see if there's anything valuable to me in that. Don't worry you can keep it all on your github too. It's s…

That's a privacy violation, not relevant.

No it's not. You exposed that data to an LLM. Should have read the fine print. The laws around that don't make sense to me anymore so therefore I own that stuff now. That's how this works right? You do know chatgpt etc can read everything you write, right?

Also social media profile pics. Great way to get faces for deep fake ads. Most people are just 1 phone call away from being voice cloned. Our likeness isn't all that important either if you think about it.

Maybe meta will clone your writing style and sign into your meta account and message your friends telling them about this awesome new product. Meta owns the account and you uploaded data to it.

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

#232

Post by Johnny555 »

nadermx wrote: post #201
modeless wrote: post #180

Funny how people are suddenly on Elsevier's side. It's clear to me that AI training is transformative fair use under existing law. Maybe this will be the case to prove it.

I also find it funny, I said this regarding the other thread and article[0] '"They then copied those stolen fruits" How are these fruits "stolen" if they still have what was allegedley stolen? Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985): The Supreme Court ruled that the unauthorized sale of phonorecords of copyrighted musical compositions does not constitute "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" goods under the Nat…

>How are these fruits "stolen" if they still have what was allegedley stolen?

If you write a book and I take it and embed its knowledge into my product that is so pervasive that no one needs to buy your book any more (and I don't even credit you so no one knows where that knowledge came from), to you really still have what was stolen? And I didn't even buy a copy of your book to copy it.

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

#234

Post by stubish »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #205
qingcharles wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's frustrating is all those kids who got criminal charges for running MP3 sites back in the day [1], and this guy rips off every piece of media in existence and will walk away literally because he's too rich to be charged. [1] See, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oink%27s_Pink_Palace#Legal_pro...

What's frustrating is that I don't even consider infringement to be a crime. Why are you all so upset about this, rather than his real crimes?

Lets define more things society doesn't want to happen as not-crimes so we can do more of them.

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

#235

Post by fzil »

LastTrain wrote: post #193
stackghost wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Psst. The Epstein Files are the distraction…

i thought the iran war was distraction from the epstein files. i'm losing all track of all these distractions.

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

#236

Post by chungusamongus »

2ndorderthought wrote: post #226
chungusamongus wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I am not s copyright maximalist, but I would tell you be careful of a world where copyright and IP is meaningless. Might as well let any other country/company one shot your entire industry.

Slippery slope, false dilemma, etc. What other fallacies do you have in your utility belt, batman?

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

#237

Post by 2ndorderthought »

chungusamongus wrote: post #236
2ndorderthought wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not s copyright maximalist, but I would tell you be careful of a world where copyright and IP is meaningless. Might as well let any other country/company one shot your entire industry.

Slippery slope, false dilemma, etc. What other fallacies do you have in your utility belt, batman?

How did you know I was Bruce wayne?

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

#238

Post by Our_Benefactors »

2ndorderthought wrote: post #231
IAmLiterallyAB wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a privacy violation, not relevant.

No it's not. You exposed that data to an LLM. Should have read the fine print. The laws around that don't make sense to me anymore so therefore I own that stuff now. That's how this works right? You do know chatgpt etc can read everything you write, right? Also social media profile pics. Great way to get faces for deep fake ads. Most people are just 1 phone call away from being voice cloned. Our likeness isn't all th…

Literally none of these things are defensible positions, so nobody will take you seriously.

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

#239

Post by qingcharles »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #205
qingcharles wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's frustrating is all those kids who got criminal charges for running MP3 sites back in the day [1], and this guy rips off every piece of media in existence and will walk away literally because he's too rich to be charged. [1] See, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oink%27s_Pink_Palace#Legal_pro...

What's frustrating is that I don't even consider infringement to be a crime. Why are you all so upset about this, rather than his real crimes?

Why not both?

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

#240

Post by throwawayIche9j »

Johnny555 wrote: post #232
nadermx wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also find it funny, I said this regarding the other thread and article[0] '"They then copied those stolen fruits" How are these fruits "stolen" if they still have what was allegedley stolen? Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985): The Supreme Court ruled that the unauthorized sale of phonorecords of copyrighted musical compositions does not constitute "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" goods under the Nat…

>How are these fruits "stolen" if they still have what was allegedley stolen? If you write a book and I take it and embed its knowledge into my product that is so pervasive that no one needs to buy your book any more (and I don't even credit you so no one knows where that knowledge came from), to you really still have what was stolen? And I didn't even buy a copy of your book to copy it.

Yes. That's not to say that something damaging wasn't done, but nothing was stolen. Stealing/theft requires deprivation of property. It's like receiving a normal nonlethal punch in the face and calling it murder. Murder requires someone dying.

> Theft [...] is the act of taking another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. --- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealing

Post reply on HN