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

FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 200 posts

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#191

Post by kelseyfrog »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #154
kelseyfrog wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you do care where it is then, no?

I care that it's within the ballpark I spent considerable detail explaining. I don't care where inside the ballpark it is. You gave an exaggerated upper limit, so extreme there's no ambiguity, of "entire repo". I gave my own exaggerated upper limit, so extreme there's no ambiguity. And mine has examples of it actually happening. Incidents so extreme they're clear violations. Maybe an analogy will help: The point at w…

To recap, the original statement was, "Llm's do not verbatim disgorge chunks of the code they were trained on." We obviously both disagree with it.

While you keep trying to drag this toward an upper bound, I'm trying to illustrate that a coin with "//" reproduces a chunk of code. Again. I don't see much of a disagreement on that point either. What I continue to fail to elicit from you is the salient difference between the two.

I'm trying to find a scissor that distills your vibes into a consistent rule and each time it's the rebutted like I'm trying to make an argument. If your system doesn't have consistency, just say so.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#192

Post by Dylan16807 »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #191
Dylan16807 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I care that it's within the ballpark I spent considerable detail explaining. I don't care where inside the ballpark it is. You gave an exaggerated upper limit, so extreme there's no ambiguity, of "entire repo". I gave my own exaggerated upper limit, so extreme there's no ambiguity. And mine has examples of it actually happening. Incidents so extreme they're clear violations. Maybe an analogy will help: The point at w…

To recap, the original statement was, "Llm's do not verbatim disgorge chunks of the code they were trained on." We obviously both disagree with it. While you keep trying to drag this toward an upper bound, I'm trying to illustrate that a coin with "//" reproduces a chunk of code. Again. I don't see much of a disagreement on that point either. What I continue to fail to elicit from you is the salient difference betwee…

I have a consistent rule. The rule is that if an LLM meets the threshold I set then it definitely violated copyright, and if it doesn't meet the threshold then we need more investigation.

We have proof of LLMs going over the threshold. So that answers the question.

Your illustrations are all in the "needs more investigation" area and they don't affect the conclusion.

We both agree that 1 token by itself is fine, and that some number is too many.

So why do you keep asking about that, as if it makes my argument inconsistent in some way? We both say the same thing!

We don't need to know the exact cutoff, or calculate how it varies. We only need to find violators that are over the cutoff.

How about you tell me what you want me to say? Do you want me to say my system is inconsistent? It's not. Having an area where the answer is unclear means the system is not able to answer every question, but it doesn't need to answer every question.

If you're accusing me of using "vibes" in a way that ruins things, then I counter that no I give nice specific and super-rare probabilities that are no more "vibes" based than your suggestion of an entire repo.

> What I continue to fail to elicit from you is the salient difference between the two.

Between what, "//" and the threshold I said?

The salient difference between the two is that one is too short to be copyright infringement and the other is so long and specific that it's definitely copyright infringement (when the source is an existing file under copyright without permission to copy). What more do you want?

Just like 1 grain of sand is definitely not a heap and 1kg of sand is definitely a heap.

If you ask me about 2, 3, 20 tokens my answer is I don't care and it doesn't matter and don't pretend it's relevant to the question of whether LLMs have been infringing copyright or not ("verbatim disgorge chunks").

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#193

Post by ranger_danger »

viccis wrote: post #153
ranger_danger wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything humans make up also comes from source material. The real (legal) question in either case, is how much is actually copied, and how obvious is it.

Not true. That's philosophical skepticism and was roundly refuted long ago.

Source:

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#194

Post by [deleted] »

Nevermark wrote: post #158
eqvinox wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not correct; you're simply required to follow all applicable licenses at the same time. This may or may not be possible, but is in practice quite commonly done.

> Just because you can merge someone else’s code does not mean you’re legally allowed to do so. > This may or may not be possible I am not sure what you are saying, that is different from the comment you replied to.

[deleted]

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#195

Post by mcronce »

lofaszvanitt wrote: post #135

FOSS is and always was a scam, in order to feed tons of code to LLMs and kicking coders in the balls, so they could not monetize their work. And, noone cares about the licenses, everyone steals and robs whatever is at arms length.

FOSS has been a thing for decades longer than LLMs have even been a vague notion.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#196

Post by uriahlight »

lofaszvanitt wrote: post #135

FOSS is and always was a scam, in order to feed tons of code to LLMs and kicking coders in the balls, so they could not monetize their work. And, noone cares about the licenses, everyone steals and robs whatever is at arms length.

So FOSS is bad and commercial software is bad? What's left - going outside and touching some grass?

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#197

Post by firesteelrain »

firesteelrain wrote: post #189
nottorp wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the comments explaining the situation from the HN community aren’t good enough?

If the repository were still accessible, the only thing I’d be looking for is whether the LGPL portions were modified or statically linked. Absent that, the license-based explanation makes sense.

I guess not?

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#198

Post by lofaszvanitt »

mcronce wrote: post #195
lofaszvanitt wrote: post #135

FOSS is and always was a scam, in order to feed tons of code to LLMs and kicking coders in the balls, so they could not monetize their work. And, noone cares about the licenses, everyone steals and robs whatever is at arms length.

FOSS has been a thing for decades longer than LLMs have even been a vague notion.

And that doesn't mean it's not 100% bullshit. Also, nation states have 10-20 year plans... yet your mental horizon spans a few days at most.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#199

Post by smaudet »

ajross wrote: post #138
nhinck3 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft/Github have no say in enforcement of a DMCA claim.

Uh... the repo has literally been taken down by GitHub: https://github.com/rockchip-linux/mpp Not sure what you're trying to say here. DMCA takedown enforcement is 100% the responsibility of the Online Service Providers per statute. It's the mechanism by which they receive safe harbor from liability for hosting infringing content.

I think you may be astonished to realize a (the?) majority of DMCA takedowns are neither checked nor legitimate...

You can post your thoughts, feelings, and opinions on google blog, and I can submit a DMCA and google is required to take down your thoughts feelings and opinions immediately without verification.

Re: FFmpeg has issued a DMCA takedown on GitHub

#200

Post by account42 »

nhinck3 wrote: post #137
ajross wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The contention is that the ffmpeg code was "cut and pasted" without attribution and without preserving the license (e.g. the LGPLv2 LICENSE file). Obviously I can't check this because I don't have a clone and the repository is now blocked behind the DMCA enforcement. But at least Github/Microsoft seem to agree that there was a violation.

Microsoft/Github have no say in enforcement of a DMCA claim.

Wrong. A DMCA notice is not a court order and Microsoft/Github are not legally required to follow it. They do take on liability for the purported violation if they do so but if it's a nonsense allegation that doesn't matter.
Post reply on HN