Live data from Hacker News

US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

theregister.com

221–230 of 410 posts

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#221
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue with lifetime (vs something like lifetime + X years) is that of inheritance. Assuming you agree with the idea of inheritance, which is another topic, then it is unfair to deny inheritance of intellectual property. For example if your father has built a house, it will be yours when he dies, it won't become a public house. So why would a book your father wrote just before he died become public domain the mome…

Then make it the greater of 20 years or the lifetime for humans. Comparing intellectual property to real or physical property makes no sense. Intellectual property is different because it is non exclusive. If you are living in your father’s house, no one else can be living there. If I am reading your fathers book, that has nothing to do with whether anyone else can read the book.

That intellectual property is non exclusive doesn't change the inheritance problem.

If you consider it right to get value from the work of your family, and you consider that intellectual work (such as writing a book) to be valuable, then as an inheritor, you should get value from it. And since the way we give value to intellectual work is though copyright, then inheritors should inherit copyright.

If you think that copyright should not exceed lifetime, then the logical consequences would be one of:

- inheritance should be abolished

- intellectual work is less valuable than other forms of work

- intellectual property / copyright is not how intellectual work should be rewarded

There are arguments for abolishing inheritance, it is after all one of the greatest sources of inequality. Essentially, it means 100% inheritance tax in addition to all the work going into the public domain. Problematic in practice.

For the value of intellectual work, well, hard to argue against it on Hacker News without being a massive hypocrite.

And there are alternatives to copyright (i.e. artificial scarcity) for compensating intellectual work like there are alternatives to capitalism. Unfortunately, it often turns out poorly in practice. One suggestion is to have some kind of tax that is fairly distributed between authors in exchange for having their work in the public domain. Problem is: define "fairly".

Note that I am not saying that copyright should last long, you can make copyright 20 years, humans or corporate, inheritable. Simple, gets in the public domain sooner, fairer to older authors, already works for patents. Why insist on "lifetime"?

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#222
post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm not sure I understand your question. It's reasonably clear that transformers get caught reproducing material that they have no right to. The kind of thing that would potentially result in a lawsuit if you did it by hand. Is that a problem with the tool, or the person using it? A photocopier can copy an entire book verbatim. Should that be illegal? Or is it the problem that the "training" process can produce a mo…

Let's start with I think a case that everyone agrees with. If I were to take an image, and compress it or encrypt it, and then show you data file, you would not be able to see the original copyrighted material anywhere in the data. But if you had the right computer program, you could use it to regenerate the original image flawlessly. I think most people would easily agree that distributing the encrypted file without…

The crux of the debate is a motte and bailey.

AI is capable of reproducing copyright (motte) therefore training on copyright is illegal (bailey).

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#223
post #204
post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that sort of logic precisely why China doesn't adhere to IP law?

Yes, I was being a bit facetious. It was snark intended to point out that corporations don't get to have their cake and eat it too. Either everything is free and there are no boundaries or we live by our own principles.

It’s barely facetious though. What is stopping me from “starting an AI company” (LLC, sure), torrenting all ebooks (which Facebook did), and as long as I don’t seed, I’m golden?

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#224
post #204
post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that sort of logic precisely why China doesn't adhere to IP law?

Yes, I was being a bit facetious. It was snark intended to point out that corporations don't get to have their cake and eat it too. Either everything is free and there are no boundaries or we live by our own principles.

Either everything is free and there are no boundaries or we live by our own principles.

Or C) large corporations (and the wealthy) do whatever they want while you still get extortion letters because your kid torrented a movie.

They really do get to have their cake and eat it too, and I don't see any end to it.

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLMs are certainly not a jpeg or a database... The google news snippets case is, in my non-lawyer opinion, the most obvious touch point. And in that case, it was decided that providing large numbers of snippets in search results was non-infringing, despite being a case of copying text from other people at-scale... And the reasons this was decided are worth reading and internalizing. There is not an obvious right answ…

> LLMs are certainly not a jpeg or a database... Their weights are derived from copyrighted works. Evaluating them preserves the semantic meaning and character of the source material. And the output directly competes against the copyrighted source materials. The fact they're smudgy and non-deterministic doesn't change how they relate to the rights of authors and artists.

The problem is, you can say all of that for human learning-from-copyrighted-works, so that point isn't definitive.

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#226
post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then make it the greater of 20 years or the lifetime for humans. Comparing intellectual property to real or physical property makes no sense. Intellectual property is different because it is non exclusive. If you are living in your father’s house, no one else can be living there. If I am reading your fathers book, that has nothing to do with whether anyone else can read the book.

That intellectual property is non exclusive doesn't change the inheritance problem. If you consider it right to get value from the work of your family, and you consider that intellectual work (such as writing a book) to be valuable, then as an inheritor, you should get value from it. And since the way we give value to intellectual work is though copyright, then inheritors should inherit copyright. If you think that c…

Agreed. I think it should be the greater of 20 years or the lifetime of the original authors.

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#227

> Minnesota woman to pay $220,000 fine for 24 illegally downloaded songs [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/sep/11/minnesota... [1]

How is this relevant?

>The RIAA accused her of downloading and distributing more than 1,700 music files on file-sharing site KaZaA

Emphasis mine. I think most people would agree that whatever AI companies are doing with training AI models is different than sending verbatim copies to random people on the internet.

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#228
post #197
post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Name two non-military things that the government owns and aren't complete dumpster fires that barely do the thing they're supposed to do. Even (especially?) the military is a dumpster fire but it's at least very good at doing what it exists to do.

1) art museums, specifically the Smithsonian, but nearly every major city has a decent one. 2) state parks are pretty rad.

The US federal government doesn't run most museums, but it does run the massive parks system with 20k employees (pre-Musk) and that system enjoys extremely high ratings from guests.

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#229
post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand your question. It's reasonably clear that transformers get caught reproducing material that they have no right to. The kind of thing that would potentially result in a lawsuit if you did it by hand. It's less clear whether taking vast amounts of copyrighted material and using it to generate other things rises to the level of copyright violation or not. It's the kind of thing that people woul…

If I write a math book, and you read it, then tell someone about the math within it. You are not violating copyright. In fact, you could write your OWN math book, or history book, or whatever, and as long as you're not copying my actual text, you are not violating copyright. However, when an LLM does the same, people now what it to be illegal. It seems pretty straightforward to apply existing copyright law to LLMs in…

That mathematical formulas already cannot be copyrighted makes this a kinda nonsense example?

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#230
post #227

> Minnesota woman to pay $220,000 fine for 24 illegally downloaded songs [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/sep/11/minnesota... [1]

How is this relevant? >The RIAA accused her of downloading and distributing more than 1,700 music files on file-sharing site KaZaA Emphasis mine. I think most people would agree that whatever AI companies are doing with training AI models is different than sending verbatim copies to random people on the internet.

> I think most people would agree that whatever AI companies are doing with training AI models is different than sending verbatim copies to random people on the internet.

I think most artist who had their works "trained by AI" without compensation would disagree with you.

Post reply on HN