There is no cost to Tracer.ai for false positives.
There is a cost to them for false negatives, if only just lost revenue.
The beatings will persist until morale improves.
Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice
21–30 of 153 posts
Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice
#22Could the sequence of events be: 1) open source project publishes source 2) AI scrapes source 3) AI generates code for proprietary game similar to that of the source 4) AI tool scans jar files and finds similar code, triggers copyright violation
It's very unlikely. The DMCA notification is from Microsoft, who owns Minecraft. The sequence of events is: 1) US votes a law that is hilariously favourable to copyright holders 2) Copyright holders abuse it for a while with non-AI bots 3) Copyright holders abuse it with AI-bots 4) Copyright holders will continue to abuse it until the law is amended.
Fun part is that US legislative branch did not have much say in creation of DMCA.
US executive branch back then was just lobbied by major copyright holders and they literally bypassed much of legislation process around congress by creating and signing international agreements instead.
By the time DMCA landed in congress there was very little that could be changed because US already had to honour intetnational agreements it's already created and signed.
Louis Rossman have a video on it:
Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice
#23Could the sequence of events be: 1) open source project publishes source 2) AI scrapes source 3) AI generates code for proprietary game similar to that of the source 4) AI tool scans jar files and finds similar code, triggers copyright violation
Doubt it. Microsoft probably just sees "voxel game" and files the claim, because they don't lose anything if it fails.
From the article:
>Luanti’s Android app is currently not available on the due to a baseless DMCA notice filed on behalf of Microsoft by Tracer.AI, alleging that Luanti infringes Minecraft’s copyright.
>Luanti is a voxel game-creation platform where anyone can make, share, discover, and play blocky games.
Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice
#24If there are no consequences for filing a false DMCA takedown, what stops people or companies filing them all the time to take apps from Apple or Microsoft offline?
Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can a TOS waive any rights? Surely there are some unalienable rights.
I, personally, don't feel that "making money by doing business in a particular market" should be a right it is illegal to waive. If it were inalienable, things like regional distribution agreements would be void, since you could sign away your ability to sell in a certain country and then compete with your distributor anyway. Let's keep some perspective here - there is no "inalienable right to sell apps to smartphone…
I think this take holds up very poorly when the reality boils down to:
"Government policy and critical services have made it so there are functionally two markets for mobile software, each owned by the manufacturers and developers of the mobile OS and hardware"
This isn't like physical sales, where I can open up a store anywhere. This also isn't like classic software sales for windows/mac desktops, where I can sell you a program from any website or physical store.
---
Functionally - this is like these private companies revoking your business license at their whim. I don't find it a tenable position.
Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice
#26How do the lawyers filing these bogus claims not end up in prison? How is it not fraud?
Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice
#27Could the sequence of events be: 1) open source project publishes source 2) AI scrapes source 3) AI generates code for proprietary game similar to that of the source 4) AI tool scans jar files and finds similar code, triggers copyright violation
It's very unlikely. The DMCA notification is from Microsoft, who owns Minecraft. The sequence of events is: 1) US votes a law that is hilariously favourable to copyright holders 2) Copyright holders abuse it for a while with non-AI bots 3) Copyright holders abuse it with AI-bots 4) Copyright holders will continue to abuse it until the law is amended.
Except, of course, Luanti holds copyright over their own assets and app. Copyright is not something you get when you file paperwork with the government, it is automatic for creative works.
DMCA is punitive to platforms who do not correctly adjudicate the law and self enforce, which is why they err on the side of the claimant rather than the accused (or the side more likely to defend their copyright in court).
So, the law doesn't really favor copyright holders, it favors extremely conservative and risk averse behavior from large platforms, regardless of who would actually win a dispute over copyright.
Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice
#28These de-facto monopolies such as "Google Play", must be
forced open by governments. It can not be that they continue
to turn a blind eye to these vile, ruthless and - most
importantly - extremely evil action by the giant that was
formerly known as Google (now known as adMonster).
Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice
#29It's just the usual corporate censorship via "good faith" DMCA notices that nobody but other corporations can afford to actually fight.
They created the perfect mafia system here. It is fascinating to see how easily democracies can be undermined.
Re: Luanti removed from Google Play due to baseless AI copyright notice
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's very unlikely. The DMCA notification is from Microsoft, who owns Minecraft. The sequence of events is: 1) US votes a law that is hilariously favourable to copyright holders 2) Copyright holders abuse it for a while with non-AI bots 3) Copyright holders abuse it with AI-bots 4) Copyright holders will continue to abuse it until the law is amended.
Fun part is that US legislative branch did not have much say in creation of DMCA. US executive branch back then was just lobbied by major copyright holders and they literally bypassed much of legislation process around congress by creating and signing international agreements instead. By the time DMCA landed in congress there was very little that could be changed because US already had to honour intetnational agreeme…
Didn't the international agreements require ratification from legislative?