Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows

waxy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 176 posts

Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows

#31

Post by ronsor »

shimman wrote: post #26
stalfie wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, the article points out that the original authors publisher actually put out two DMCA notices to google last year, apparently with no effect. I guess DMCA takedowns are only for the big fish fighting the good fight against car pirates.

Why aren't they suing Google in court? Now is the best time to do this politically, the site doesn't mention what state they live in but I'd doubt that you wouldn't be able to get a state AG to listen to you if you reached out. edit to add: Google has ignored all safe harbor protections, they would lose this protection and be held liable for all damages. This seems like a pretty solid win for the author here if they'…

[dead]

Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows

#32

Post by zuzululu »

DMCA only applies to 1:1 copy, if you used AI to convert it to something else, then DMCA is the wrong tool.

It's ultimately a fruitless endeavor to go after because you would have to prove that you can use the said AI tool to create the exact word by word copy and that is going to be very expensive and shaky in court

I think its time that we stop extracting rent from outdated copyright laws. Once AI gets good enough you aren't going to be bothering with them anyway. All copyright law does is put money in the pockets of those that created the law and a portion of that goes to the creator.

Copyright laws are basically tax on the poor.

Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows

#34

Post by fhdkweig »

Jtarii wrote: post #29
fhdkweig wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are already companies like Asylum films. Pay attention to the right hand column of this table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Asylum_films

Parody films do not compete with the actual films they are parodying. It's not a good comparison.

I don't think they are meant to be parodies. Parodies poke comedic fun at the originals. These are meant to confuse someone into buying the wrong version of a popular film. That's why they make sure the names and even the covers look as identical as they can without getting sued.

Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows

#35

Post by sarchertech »

fwipsy wrote: post #10

From the article I guess Qontour reproduced the entire text verbatim. > it also includes the entire text of the book, from its opening 800-word foreword to a complete archive of all 311 neologisms... all penned by Koenig. So it doesn't seem likely to me that they asked AI to make a fan site and it spat out the book; instead they asked AI to make a fan site and then copy-pasted the text of the book into it. Perhaps a…

> However, Claude says unfortunately copyright law doesn't work that way.

I hate this so much. Not you or your post, just that it’s becoming normal to just throw out “Claude says this” without doing any fact checking.

Claude’s also technically right but wrong where it matters. The author could easily offer to settle for control of the site instead of suing. If the author registered the copyright to the book, he doesn’t even need to prove damages to be awarded statutory damages. He potentially has a lot of leverage.

Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows

#36

Post by zuzululu »

sixtyj wrote: post #16

Prompt Digital Inc (DBA Qontour) is a Webflow premium partner. So let’s ask Webflow’s public relations dept. how cool are they with the fact their partner is a lier and plagiarist.

I really don't think they give a shit

> So let’s ask Webflow’s public relations dept. how cool are they with the fact their partner is a lier and plagiarist.

I also frown upon bullying companies like this over something they can't control.

Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows

#37

Post by flexagoon »

shevy-java wrote: post #8
lambdaone wrote: post #4

This is exactly what DMCA takedowns are actually for.

DMCA to take down AI slop? I feel that is twice the mistake. DMCA should not exist in the first place. Neither should AI slop. Here we have AI stealing from people. AI is a thief.

So you're against copyright protection, but also against AI using copyrighted work? I can understand both of those positions separately, but how can you combine them in the same statement?

Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows

#39

Post by flexagoon »

zuzululu wrote: post #32

DMCA only applies to 1:1 copy, if you used AI to convert it to something else, then DMCA is the wrong tool. It's ultimately a fruitless endeavor to go after because you would have to prove that you can use the said AI tool to create the exact word by word copy and that is going to be very expensive and shaky in court I think its time that we stop extracting rent from outdated copyright laws. Once AI gets good enough…

The fake website also re-published the entire 1:1 text of the original book.

Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows

#40

Post by flexagoon »

bbor wrote: post #13

Correction: some random tiny scam company copied a book without permission in blatant violation of copyright law, and AI was briefly and tangentially involved with the final product. In other words: AI stole someone’s soul with its own metallic claws! Out with the devil machines.

Not sure what your point is; the title doesn't claim "AI stole the book", it says "an agency stole the book and used AI to republish it", which is true.
Post reply on HN