Live data from Hacker News

Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

github.com

231–240 of 354 posts

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's actually a lot of court activity on this topic, but the law moves slowly and is reluctant to issue injunctions where harm is not obvious. It's more that the law about "one guy decides to pirate twelve movies to watch them at home and share with his buddies" is already well-settled, but the law about "a company pirates 10,000,000 pieces to use as training data for an AI model (a practice that the law already s…

There is a distinction that must be made that very few people do, but thankfully the courts seems to grasp: Training on copyright is a separate claim than skirting payment for copyright. Which pretty much boils down to: "If they put it out there for everyone to see, it's probably OK to train on it, if they put it behind a paywall and you don't pay, the training part doesn't matter, it's a violation."

Whether it’s legal slash fair use to train on copyrighted material is only one of the questions currently being asked though. There’s a separate issue at play where these companies are pirating the material for the training process.

By comparison, someone here brought up that it might be transformative fair use to write a play heavily based on Blood Meridian, but you still need to buy a copy of the book. It would still be infringement to pirate the e-book for your writing process, even if the end result was legal.

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#233
post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the accusation comes from the fact that Swartz accessed the downloads through a MIT network closet, which AI companies wasn't doing. The equivalent to that would be if openai broke into a wiring closet at Disneyland to download Disney movies.

The CFAA is vague enough to punish unauthorized access to a computer system. I don't have an example case in mind, but people have gotten in trouble for scraping websites before while ignoring e.g. robots.txt

The CFAA might be vague, but the case law on scraping pretty much has been resolved to "it's pretty much legal except in very limited circumstances". It's regrettable that less resourced defendants were harassed before large corporations were able to secure such rulings, but the rulings that allowed scraping occurred before AI companies' scraping was done, so it's unclear why AI companies in particular should be getting flak here.

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one (in the US) has been jailed for downloading copyrighted material.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz And the US is not the only jurisdiction

Aaron Swartz was not jailed or even charged for copyright infringement. The discussion and the comment I replied to is centered around US companies and jurisdiction.

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#235
post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think that there are any clear examples of cases where ONLY downloading has resulted in huge fines. They [1, and others] been hunting and fining downloaders for over a decade now, with the only "evidence" being IP addresses connected with the torrent [2]. 1: https://www.njordlaw.com/filesharing-and-downloading-films/q... 2: https://admin.ovpn.com/en/blog/online-integrity-new-threats-...

>with the only "evidence" being IP addresses connected with the torrent [2]. Is that an unreasonable assumption? As much as people like to come up with excuses like "I had open wifi!" or "I was running a TOR node", judges don't seem inclined to believe them, probably for the same reason they don't seem inclined to believe excuses like "somebody took my car on a joyride and then returned it!" for parking tickets. Reme…

You are missing the point I was replying to, specifically that parent suggested people were only hunted for creating/uploading pirated content, not merely participating in the torrent.

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think that there are any clear examples of cases where ONLY downloading has resulted in huge fines. They [1, and others] been hunting and fining downloaders for over a decade now, with the only "evidence" being IP addresses connected with the torrent [2]. 1: https://www.njordlaw.com/filesharing-and-downloading-films/q... 2: https://admin.ovpn.com/en/blog/online-integrity-new-threats-...

Yes, but torrenting is not ONLY downloading, it's both. The articles you link are very clearly talking about 'Sharing' (from link 2: "File sharing consists of both download and upload of a file.").

Yes, thats lawyer speak to make clients/victims believe there is no distinction.

Hint: there is a distinction.

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm well aware mishearing "carots" as "carrots" is not a hallucination. That's an example I gave after having used Whisper, the topic of discussion.

An example of what you claimed was a hallucination

[deleted]

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#238
post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the same as piracy though. He wasn't downloading millions of scientific papers from libgen or sci-hub, he was downloading them directly from jstor. Indeed, none of his charge was for copyright infringement. It was for stuff like "breaking and entering" and "unauthorized access to a computer network".

The exact same charges could apply to the AI scrapers illegitimately accessing random websites.

I haven’t seen any accusations that they’ve done that, though. Usually people get pirated material from sources that intentionally share pirated material.

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#239
post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>with the only "evidence" being IP addresses connected with the torrent [2]. Is that an unreasonable assumption? As much as people like to come up with excuses like "I had open wifi!" or "I was running a TOR node", judges don't seem inclined to believe them, probably for the same reason they don't seem inclined to believe excuses like "somebody took my car on a joyride and then returned it!" for parking tickets. Reme…

You are missing the point I was replying to, specifically that parent suggested people were only hunted for creating/uploading pirated content, not merely participating in the torrent.

>specifically that parent suggested people were only hunted for creating/uploading pirated content, not merely participating in the torrent.

For all intents and purposes, participating in the torrent almost guarantees that you seeded, because all torrent clients upload as you download.

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz And the US is not the only jurisdiction

Aaron Swartz was not jailed or even charged for copyright infringement. The discussion and the comment I replied to is centered around US companies and jurisdiction.

The thread is centered around US companies, but not US jurisdiction.
Post reply on HN