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

141–150 of 176 posts

Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows

#141

Post by altmanaltman »

rustcleaner wrote: post #123
altmanaltman wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But in this future you described where we can magically one shot stuff, why would anyone use services from businesses and keep paying them? Why not just zero shot it with LLM and keep your money? Businesses will not keep building if they don't have users, so why would they? I think you are criminally underrating what goes in a business other than just product or tech. It is extremely hard to write or create a company…

This is why OpenAI, Adobe, et al, are trying to take away personal computing, putting much of it into the cloud and squeezing component costs. Why they're trying to get us to accept guardrails on AI for moral hazard reasons. Why Anthropic intentionally gimps its models if it detects AI research. They are the monopolists and we are the paypigs! NEVER SUBSCRIBE!

Pretty much a nonsensical and random comment, but I'll respond.

How would OpenAI function without the cloud? You literally cannot run the frontier models on any consumer-grade hardware.

Adobe lets you run its software on your personal computer (charges licensing costs for it).

They are monopolists for different reasons.

My point was that vibe-coding LLMs will not help individuals replace Adobe or OpenAI. It is very unlikely that these businesses will go away because of vibe coding or local AI models.

Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows

#142

Post by raincole »

pixel_popping wrote: post #20
echelon wrote: post #5

AI laundering is going to become a major tactic in all domains. Fiction and nonfiction writing, software, video, music, you name it. It's easy to take GPL software and rewrite it in another language without the license. Trivially easy. It's possible you'll even be able to do the same with just compiled bytecode soon. Just recently there was an instance where Nous Research Hermes agent cloned some Chinese OSS. It's ha…

Literally this is our future, many devs still don't seem to believe we will be able to "zeroshot" everything, but it's because they haven't experienced themselves proper tooling (at the minimum leveraging 4 models in debate, adversarial and loops and workflows and so-on and unli-loop until completion, MITM everything...) , with the exception of advanced fields, most softwares are pretty basic, let's say redoing X11 i…

> The fact that it's done automatically shouldn't change that

Except it changes everything as copyright as a concept was introduced to balance the power between those whose works scale and those whose works don't. By the time it was authors vs printing press. That was the sole reason why copyright became a thing.

It's not to prevent people from copying things. It's just to distribute economic benefits between different partis so all participants are incented enough to keep working. And what can be done automatically changes the balance a lot.

Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows

#143

Post by jagged-chisel »

pluto_modadic wrote: post #140
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…

Disney and Nintendo's very litigious and successful lawyers have entered the chat

>> I think its time that we stop extracting rent from outdated copyright laws.

Do you really think either of these companies or their lawyers would say something like this?

Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows

#144

Post by marshray »

waxpancake wrote: post #138
marshray wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is titled "The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows", whereas the HN title is (currently) "Agency stole bestselling author's book, used AI to relaunch as their own". So it seems reasonable to infer that the submitter felt that emphasizing the AI angle would be the part worth discussing. The article fully embraces these weakly-connected insinuations: "But it’s not surprising to see it coming from an age…

It's not an advertisement for Claude. It's a screenshot from the relevant part of Qontour's website that I was referring to in my post.

Lol! This is why they told us to properly label and provide attribution for every image :-D

Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows

#145

Post by saghm »

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?

I'm not I understand why you're asking me whether I think the phenomenon of intellectual property laws being enforced in a way that unfairly benefits the wealthy exists. Of course I do, that's why I brought it up in the first place. That doesn't mean it's defensible though.

Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows

#146

Post by marshray »

scotty79 wrote: post #132
marshray wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He basically liked the idea of the book and used the bulk of its text as lorem ipsum in a demo for their most likely one person "digital agency" that probably has 3 clients including mom. What is your basis for this belief? Did you read the part about the obviously intentionally-added affiliate links to the original book? > The only part of copyright I agree with is right to inalienable attribution [...] So whoever…

> What is your basis for this belief? My experience inflicted stupidity. > Did you read the part about the obviously intentionally-added affiliate links to the original book? I find it nice that they linked to the original book. For every x earned let the original author earn many times more. It's probably a better deal than the author got from their legal publisher. > Did you read the part about the fake site appear…

> My experience inflicted stupidity.

We've all been there.

> I find it nice that they linked to the original book. For every x earned let the original author earn many times more. > It's probably a better deal than the author got from their legal publisher.

These two statements sound contradictory to me.

> And who's fault is that? Google? Or this little slop maker that I'm (again stupidly) assuming is not a SEO hacker.

Why not both? I think there's plenty of blame to go around.

Also, the publisher who presumably convinced the author that it would be a good idea to assign them exclusive rights. The affiliate link the blog post refers to as "the author's own" actually belongs to the publisher.

Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows

#147

Post by derektank »

carlosjobim wrote: post #118
derektank wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Thankfully, you don’t need cops to pursue a civil case.

I don’t know why you’re pretending as if this is some Herculean effort. This is pretty well tread territory at this point, see Jacobsen v. Katzer. Katzer was forced to settle for $100k in 2010 for violating the license on Jacobsen’s model train software that had been uploaded to SourceForge.

Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows

#148

Post by fsckboy »

rustcleaner wrote: post #113
dylan604 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>This is why awards need to be based on % of total assets or revenue of the defendant.

yes! and we need to add the death penalty to the list of punishments for children, because what matters is not the size of the crime, but the harshness of enforcement, that's the real deterrent, arewerite!?

Re: The Wholesale Plagiarism of Obscure Sorrows

#149

Post by huslage »

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.

YouTube's take down infrastructure exists to prop up ad revenue. It was created by the industry and imposed on YouTube. There is no ad revenue on an App Store (to speak of) to protect so Google has no incentive to impose restrictions there that are purely DMCA-based. The incentives are misaligned between the app makers and the app distributors...structurally so.
Post reply on HN