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

Post by 2ndorderthought » Wed, May 06, 2026, 1:57 AM UTC

Our_Benefactors wrote: post #238

2ndorderthought wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by [deleted] » Wed, May 06, 2026, 2:00 AM UTC

2ndorderthought wrote: post #216

whattheheckheck wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If i could ask for a summary from an llm vs buy a book id go with the summary. That eats into commercial use and the supreme court case sided with Gerald Ford when a newspaper published a small gist of his autobiography because it ate into the sales

Yea nope. I like the full book without any loss of information. Even if I don't want to read the entire book. LLMs love to respond even when something is outside of their training set.

Post by skeeter2020 » Wed, May 06, 2026, 2:23 AM UTC

throwawayIche9j wrote: post #240

Johnny555 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. --- ht…

Post by albedoa » Wed, May 06, 2026, 2:28 AM UTC

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…

Post by throwawayIche9j » Wed, May 06, 2026, 2:32 AM UTC

skeeter2020 wrote: post #245

throwawayIche9j wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. --- ht…

>> Stealing/theft requires deprivation of property maybe you should look up the definition of property, which is a set of legally recognized rights over a thing, typically including: * possession (what you're focusing on) * use * exclusion * transfer The last 3 seem like they have been breached, in legally that's theft.