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

311–320 of 484 posts

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

#311

Post by gizajob »

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…

If my book isn’t in your LLM, then prove it and don’t use my book to train your LLM.

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

#312

Post by verisimi »

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?

Principles and law (that determines 'crime', a legal word) are not the same thing.

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

#313

Post by UltraSane »

phyzome wrote: post #254
UltraSane wrote: post #209

Remember when nerds loved saying "information wants to be free"?

That was intended as a warning, not an aspiration. Some people misunderstood.

No, it was always meant as a good thing and was usually said in the context of censorship, which copyright is really just a form of.

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

#314

Post by gizajob »

2ndorderthought wrote: post #187
zx8080 wrote: post #177

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

Because meta will delay any case for several years. Then the lawyers will settle for 1/100th to 1/1000th of what they stole quietly. Meta will rebrand and change its name again just like it did after its last major scandal. No accountability for rich people has funny patterns like this.

They don’t need to rebrand - “Meta” (after / exceeding) is a catch all for whatever they’re being meta at today: piracy / privacy infringement / theft / slop production etc.

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

#315

Post by Teever »

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

Because the 'perhaps' there is a load-bearing word that is doing a lot of work and it's going to be come crashing down sooner or later.

Of course some kids are going to be charged for this kind of shit, it's still a rules for thee but not for me world, the 'not for me' folks are just a hell of a lot more brazen about it.

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

#316

Post by [deleted] »

m4x wrote: post #307
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

[deleted]

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

#317

Post by timcobb »

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…

Okay but... I am very unimpressed by this. How is it that he then gets to still be an AI monopolist/hegemonist? How's that fair? He basically force-acquired all this stuff without asking, now he's haggling for it later. Where are the criminal charges? Where is the deprivement of, if not freedom, then equity assets.

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

#318

Post by davkan »

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

As someone who’s engaged in private piracy basically my entire life I’ve never even considered venturing into gray areas of licensing when procuring for my company. In fact I’ve done the opposite and rooted it out wherever I’ve found it.

It just seems obvious to me that a profit seeking venture should be held to a higher standard when it comes to infringing on the property rights of other companies and individuals, especially if they seek to enforce their own.

Those kids weren’t hypocritically enforcing their own property rights and making employees sign ndas while downloading shit from tpb.

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

#319

Post by timcobb »

ethbr1 wrote: post #242
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You get Al Capone on the charge you can make stick.

Right but Al Capone did jail time, here Zuck gets to break and enter into people's homes, take their stuff, then haggle for it after-the-fact, all the while keeping the civilization-domination apparatus that he built using the stuff he stole? That is super not fair. Ordinary people could certainly not get away with that.

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

#320

Post by blks »

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.

When you use millions of copyrighted materials to bundle together to produce a commercial product, I wouldn’t call that a fair use. Especially when licensing of such material doesn’t explicitly allow that, the material wasn’t even purchased on consumer markets and your commercial product may be a competitor/analogue to the copyrighted material.

Not even going to all GPL stuff, that in a better world should have screwed all the slop companies

Post reply on HN