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

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

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 410 posts

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

#281

Post by hulitu »

jhaile wrote: post #159

One aspect that I feel is ignored by the comments here is the geo-political forces at work. If the US takes the position that LLMs can't use copyrighted work or has to compensate all copyright holders – other countries (e.g. China) will not follow suit. This will mean that US LLM companies will either fall behind or be too expensive. Which means China and other countries will probably surge ahead in AI, at least in t…

> One aspect that I feel is ignored by the comments here is the geo-political forces at work. If the US takes the position that LLMs can't use copyrighted work or has to compensate all copyright holders – other countries (e.g. China) will not follow suit.

Oh really ? They didn't had any problem when people installed copyrighted Windows to come after them. BSA. But now Microsoft turns a blind eye because it suits them.

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

#282

Post by hulitu »

gruez wrote: post #227
wnevets wrote: post #218

> 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.

> How is this relevant?

She was training RI (real intelligence). Is now relevant ? Or does she has to be rich and pay some senators to be relevant ?

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

#283

Post by hochstenbach »

mattxxx wrote: post #51

Well, firing someone for this is super weird. It seems like an attempt to censor an interpretation of the law that: 1. Criticizes a highly useful technology 2. Matches a potentially-outdated, strict interpretation of copyright law My opinion: I think using copyrighted data to train models for sure seems classically illegal. Despite that, Humans can read a book, get inspiration, and write a new book and not be litigat…

Humans are not allowed to do what AI firms want to do. That was one of the copyright office arguments: a student can't just walk into a library and say "I want a copy of all your books, because I need them for learning".

Humans are also very useful and transformative.

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

#284

Post by Zambyte »

dmonitor wrote: post #274
zelphirkalt wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to challenge that idea: Why?

People would use that service instead of Steam, publishers would add annoying DRM to mitigate lost sales, etc etc. The current illegality of the piracy website prevents them from offering a service as nice as Steam. It has to be a sketchy torrent hub that changes URLs every few months. If it was as easy as changing the url to freesteampowered.com or installing an extension inside the steam launcher, the whole "piracy…

> publishers would add annoying DRM to mitigate lost sales, etc etc.

People would just delete the malware (DRM) out of the source code that is no longer restricted by copyright.

If your argument is that copyright is good because it discourages DRM, I think you have a very evidently weak argument.

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

#285

Post by MyOutfitIsVague »

HappMacDonald wrote: post #130
MyOutfitIsVague wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not only publication, otherwise people wouldn't be able to be successfully sued for downloading and consuming copyrighted content, it would only be the uploaders who get into trouble.

Do you have any links to cases where people were sued for downloading and consuming content without also uploading (eg, bittorent), hosting, sharing the copyrighted works, etc?

There were the famous napster cases, the kids and old ladies that got sued by the RIAA for using limewire to download some music.

There is also the fact that copyright holders will pressure your ISP into sending threatening letters and shutting off your Internet for piracy, even without you seeding. I haven't gotten the impression that you are in the clear for pirating as long as you don't distribute.

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

#286

Post by hulitu »

gruez wrote: post #244
wnevets wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Studio ghibli[1] might object to both people pirating their films and AI companies allowing their art style to be duplicated, but that's not the same as saying those two things are the same. Sharing a movie rip on bittorrent is obviously different than training an AI model that can reproduce the studio ghbili style, even to diehard AI opponents. [1] used purely as an example

> Sharing a movie rip on bittorrent is obviously different than training an AI model that can reproduce the studio ghbili style, even to diehard AI opponents.

Ok, how about training AI on leaked Windows source code ?

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

#287

Post by hulitu »

nadermx wrote: post #191
mdhb wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s so fucking obviously illegal when you think about it rationally for more than a few seconds. We aren’t even talking about “fair use” we are talking about how it works in practice which was Meta torrenting pirated books, never paying anyone a cent and straight up stealing the content at scale.

The fact you are even using the word stealing, is telling to your lack of knowledge in this field. Copyright infringement is not stealing[0]. The propaganda of the copyright cartel has gotten to you. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985...

> The fact you are even using the word stealing, is telling to your lack of knowledge in this field.

I agree. If you can pay the judge, the congress or the president, it is definitely not stealing. It is (the best) democracy (money can buy). /s

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

#288

Post by Zambyte »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #264
Zambyte wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't simply make software because you love it, right? I can't speak for Stephen but I absolutely do. I program for fun all the time. > Should people not be able to make money off their effort? Is anyone arguing otherwise?

Removing copyright is removing a lot of the protections that enable users to get paid for their efforts. How would a novelist make money, and why would someone pay them, if their work is free to be copied at will?

> How would a novelist make money

Maybe selling books? Maybe other jobs? The same way that they made money for thousands of years before copyright, really. Books and other arts did exist before copyright!

> and why would someone pay them, if their work is free to be copied at will?

I don't think it's really a matter of if people will pay them. If their art is good, of course people will pay them. People feel good about paying for an original piece of art.

The question is really more about if people will be able to get obscenely rich over being the original creator of some piece of art, to which the answer is it would indeed be less likely.

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

#289

Post by Pooge »

gruez wrote: post #236
r053bud wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>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? Nothing. You don't even need the LLC. I don't think anyone got prosecuted for only downloading. All prosecutions were for distribution. Note that if you're torrenting, even if you stop the moment it's finished (and thus never goes to "seeding"), you're still uploading, a…

Which is still what Facebook did, if I'm not mistaken. There's no way they torrented and managed to upload less than 1 bit.

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

#290

Post by gruez »

hulitu wrote: post #286
gruez wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Studio ghibli[1] might object to both people pirating their films and AI companies allowing their art style to be duplicated, but that's not the same as saying those two things are the same. Sharing a movie rip on bittorrent is obviously different than training an AI model that can reproduce the studio ghbili style, even to diehard AI opponents. [1] used purely as an example

> Sharing a movie rip on bittorrent is obviously different than training an AI model that can reproduce the studio ghbili style, even to diehard AI opponents. Ok, how about training AI on leaked Windows source code ?

arguably different from both, because you microsoft could say it's a trade secret. Note I'm not claiming that because it's different, it must be okay, just that it's unfair to compare torrenting with AI training.
Post reply on HN