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

111–120 of 176 posts

Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows

#111

Post by [deleted] »

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #107
carlosjobim wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sell the program or give it away for free, to me both is fine. But to release the source code for free, then complain that other people take it and sell it - that's ridiculous. If I give away my secret sauce recipe, I have no right to complain if somebody puts it in a bottle and sells it. Either you keep it to yourself or you don't.

Every book contains all of its content. It's "open source" by necessity. Are you saying that if you buy a book, you can do with the contents of the book whatever you want?

[deleted]

Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows

#112

Post by fantasizr »

saghm wrote: post #67
mcoliver wrote: post #54

A similar thing is happening to me. I worked on something for 3 years which I give away for free to help people and a thief took my software, ran it through ai to rebrand everything and relaunched as their own app. Unfortunately the ai missed a few Easter eggs I had hidden so the theft is undeniable. Google and Apple are useless for dmca unless you have a court order. They refuse to look at or arbitrate. So now I'm o…

> Google and Apple are useless for dmca unless you have a court order. This is especially egregious in Google's case given how trigger happy they are with pulling YouTube videos with a simple claim that something is infringing. I guess unless you can lobby them at the level of the music industry, their default policy is to do nothing.

reminds me of this woman who had copyright filed against her for playing moonlight sonata. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27004577 if not for the complete hassle and threat to her livelihood, it might be laughable.

Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows

#113

Post by rustcleaner »

dylan604 wrote: post #71
saghm wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google and Apple are useless for dmca unless you have a court order. This is especially egregious in Google's case given how trigger happy they are with pulling YouTube videos with a simple claim that something is infringing. I guess unless you can lobby them at the level of the music industry, their default policy is to do nothing.

Let's consider an independent dev making claims vs the army of lawyers from RIAA/MPAA type claimants. Which one do you think evilCorps will pay attention to?

This is why awards need to be based on % of total assets or revenue of the defendant. If little guy beats the big guy defendant, little guy should walk away with millions or billions. If big guy wins against the little guy defendant, it's just hundreds or thousands. It makes relatively poor individuals who can't afford a team of effective lawyers lawsuit proof, while making those who can wage effective lawfare juicy targets if they so much as fudge the line with the outside of their shoes!

Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows

#114

Post by vkou »

fwipsy wrote: post #7
lambdaone wrote: post #4

This is exactly what DMCA takedowns are actually for.

And in this case, they didn't work. Perhaps Qontour, as a web-native dev firm, has figured out a blind spot in Google's DMCA takedown process?

The blind spot is the same one that's always there. Takedown notices from partners are fast tracked, takedown notices from Joe Bob require a court filing.

(It makes some degree of sense - I shouldn't be able to use a burner identity to get Google to take down (even temporarily) a million-subscriber channel. The big problem with the DMCA is the impossibility of proving that a grey-area filer is acting in bad faith, but that's in the wheelhouse of the courts, not the platforms.)

Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows

#115

Post by kensey »

colonCapitalDee wrote: post #53
sarchertech wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve noticed the same thing at work with Opus 4.8. ChatGPT on my personal plan does it too. Just yesterday I asked it to give some places fitting a specific criteria. The first was that they were within a 2 hour drive of my city. 75% of the locations it gave me were more than 2x that distance. It kept doing this across multiple difference searches. I tried high and pro with no difference.

That's not surprising, LLMs are bad at pulling hyperspecific facts out of memory. LLMs aren't mapping applications, they're reasoners. Just a poor problem fit

> LLMs aren't mapping applications, they're reasoners.

No they aren't. They're statistical token generators. They do not understand concepts such as "distance from a given location or coordinate point". If you're lucky you might ask it something likely to appear nearly verbatim in its training data, like "Chinese restaurants in Midtown Manhattan", and get back a reasonably accurate list, but it does not understand what a "Chinese restaurant" is, or what "Midtown Manhattan" is, or that one relates to the other in any way other than both appearing statistically associated with another set of tokens when they appear near each other.

Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows

#117

Post by rustcleaner »

flexagoon wrote: post #37
shevy-java wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>So you're against copyright protection

Yes, I am. Copyright is legalized plunder of anyone who does not pay a protection fee for a "license" to not be plundered. Going after torrenters and people trying to regain functionality on their thermostats and 3D printers is legalized plunder.

Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows

#118

Post by carlosjobim »

derektank wrote: post #102
carlosjobim wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sell the program or give it away for free, to me both is fine. But to release the source code for free, then complain that other people take it and sell it - that's ridiculous. If I give away my secret sauce recipe, I have no right to complain if somebody puts it in a bottle and sells it. Either you keep it to yourself or you don't.

> Either you keep it to yourself or you don't. Governments have presented us with a third option, intellectual property, which allows a creator to release their intellectual contributions publicly while preventing someone else from reproducing it. Violating the terms of an open source license are generally considered intellectual property violations and allow the creator to seek damages.

Good luck with that. If you throw your wallet onto a busy street corner, then by the law nobody is allowed to take it either. But cops will tell you that they have more important things to take care of than victims who take every measurable action at hand to make themselves victims.

Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows

#119

Post by rustcleaner »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #89
flexagoon wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I mean one can be for copyright protection but against the DMCA as a bad way to implement copyright protection.

Lehman (a lobbyist) did an end-run around congress to the WIPO, to use treaty law to force the passage of the DMCA.

Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows

#120

Post by uberex »

lokar wrote: post #104
dylan604 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are they stealing from Amazon? They delivered a sale to Amazon, which Amazon has a program to reward the effort of delivering that sale. In no way should this be misconstrued as my supporting of the action, but I'm also not delusional making baseless accusations.

Consider the counter factual. The site does not exist, the people who found it (probably via search) end up at Amazon directly with no referral fee.

Good SEO alone and affiliate links is not stealing.
Post reply on HN