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

301–310 of 484 posts

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

#301

Post by xigoi »

protocolture wrote: post #285
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.

>It's clear to me that AI training is transformative fair use under existing law. I wouldn't even go that far. Its an entirely new product. Its like the guy who sold you the keyboard demanding royalties for the software you built. That the person who wrote the book couldn't predict a new use case for the book in training LLMs, is irrelevant. The book isn't in the LLM. Its not being sold with the LLM. Its one of billi…

> The book isn't in the LLM.

An LLM is essentially a lossy compression of the training data. The book absolutely is in there, it’s just mangled to the point of unrecognizability.

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

#302

Post by HWR_14 »

collabs wrote: post #256
2ndorderthought wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of the things I wrote are already happening. The others probably are but haven't been reported yet.

I think Anthorpic has pledged to not use team and enterprise user's data for training purposes. I don't mind if they do some verification or whatever as long as it doesn't end up in the responses it gives others.

What Silicon Valley company over a decade old has respected the limitations on using data that they agreed to? At least any valuable data.

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

#303

Post by nadermx »

albedoa wrote: post #247
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…

You were swiftly corrected about your misunderstanding under your original comment. Reposting it here, removing the quote farther from its context, and hoping to not be downvoted again is very weird!

I don't see how me quoting the actual complaint the news was about, in both threads, was me being swiftly corrected. If you where to base it on upvotes then this one shows I'm right and you got swiftly corrected here. In both cases it was relevant as both threads where not yet merged and about the same complaint. And held two positons on front page and I was adding to the discourse.

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

#304

Post by themafia »

nadermx wrote: post #300
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...

I just don't see why everyone seems to not be cheering that perhaps we are not going to go back to the days where all those kids are going to be re charged. It almost feels like everyone wants to go back to labels carpet bombing students with lawsuits[0] [0] https://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaa-v-thepeople.html

False dichotomy. We can obviously have both. We can destroy corporations that rely on copyright to exist and then abuse that system to profit. We can also ignore college students and minor contributory copyright infringement.

The difference in scope here should be obvious.

We can similarly punish drug dealers while not punishing drug users. In fact it's already policy in large parts of the USA.

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

#305

Post by protocolture »

xigoi wrote: post #301
protocolture wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's clear to me that AI training is transformative fair use under existing law. I wouldn't even go that far. Its an entirely new product. Its like the guy who sold you the keyboard demanding royalties for the software you built. That the person who wrote the book couldn't predict a new use case for the book in training LLMs, is irrelevant. The book isn't in the LLM. Its not being sold with the LLM. Its one of billi…

> The book isn't in the LLM. An LLM is essentially a lossy compression of the training data. The book absolutely is in there, it’s just mangled to the point of unrecognizability.

The wood tends to have an impression of the hammer that hits it. The book isn't in there, the weights are just shaped by what tools were used to form it.

When large quantities of source material are replicable by prompting its a bug not a feature.

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

#306

Post by citadel_melon »

protocolture wrote: post #293
eloisius wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it grating that so many AI boosters try to frame pushing back against the AI industry as a sudden about-face for everyone that spent the last 20 years pushing back against the copyright industry. I’m also in favor of decriminalizing or legalizing small amounts of pot for personal use. That doesn’t mean I’m behind industrialized narcotic production on such a huge scale that it that it starts to distort the econ…

>I find it grating that so many AI boosters try to frame pushing back against the AI industry as a sudden about-face for everyone that spent the last 20 years pushing back against the copyright industry. What do you think the outcome of tightening fair use is going to be? Do you think its going to be most effectual against these big evil AI companies we are meant to fear? Or is it going to end up putting more individ…

One could imagine a different legal standards for recreational, research, and commercial uses.

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

#307

Post by m4x »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #279
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.

> 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? The trouble with this analogy is that it proves too much. Suppose you write a book, and so does someone else, but they have better marketing than you and then…

A better analogy would be that you do original research or work and produce a valuable book. Somebody else looks at your work, decides it has value, and reproduces it in a new book under their name. The new book is cheaper, or easier to find, or for whatever reason displaces your original book created through your own research and investment. Now somebody else is profiting off your creativity or work, without payment or even acknowledgement.

I'm not sure how this plays out legally, but it certainly seems unethical

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

#308

Post by gizajob »

alex1138 wrote: post #203
gizajob wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re already on record as hoovering up Library Genesis and Anna’s Archive. For their “fair use” copyright bonfire to train their LLM. So not are these publishers rightfully pissed, Meta didn’t even give them the $6.99 for each epub to begin with. They’ve stolen the whole thing as part of this “fair use” campaign to destroy human authorship free of even the most basic remuneration.

Fun fact, if you link AA on FB it gets removed

I’m not a user but that doesn’t surprise me.

It’s also that Library Genesis was one of the best things on the internet until it came out that Meta had scraped it, at which point it became harder and harder to access. So not only did they pirate, their doing so made it harder for everyone else to enjoy piracy too.

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

#309

Post by nadermx »

themafia wrote: post #304
nadermx wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don't see why everyone seems to not be cheering that perhaps we are not going to go back to the days where all those kids are going to be re charged. It almost feels like everyone wants to go back to labels carpet bombing students with lawsuits[0] [0] https://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaa-v-thepeople.html

False dichotomy. We can obviously have both. We can destroy corporations that rely on copyright to exist and then abuse that system to profit. We can also ignore college students and minor contributory copyright infringement. The difference in scope here should be obvious. We can similarly punish drug dealers while not punishing drug users. In fact it's already policy in large parts of the USA.

To quote another user in this thread

"Thats such a non sequitur. This isnt a weed legalisation argument, its "Do we make IP worse for everyone, because you dont like some people benefiting from fair use"."

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

#310

Post by utopiah »

ben_w wrote: 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…

Here I am, finally cheering for IP lawyers. /$
Post reply on HN