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

Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

variety.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 484 posts

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#281

Post by [deleted] »

rustystump wrote: post #264
throwawayIche9j wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theft is not the breach of any property right. It's specifically the deprivation of property without consent. Yes, I have checked the definition in my jurisdiction. Getting punched in the face also violates rights, yet isn't murder. Murder is specifically about dying.

You forget that laws are made by people and at anytime they can change interpretations are arbitrary, roe vs wade today but not tomorrow. People seem to think what ai is today is theft. If enough people agree, it will be theft. Big companies dont like this and push the other way. An objectiveness doesnt exist here. It is too wiggly

[deleted]

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#282

Post by visarga »

King-Aaron wrote: post #200
modeless wrote: post #180

Funny how people are suddenly on Elsevier's side. It's clear to me that AI training is transformative fair use under existing law. Maybe this will be the case to prove it.

Absorb all "our" IP without consent, in doing so remove "our" own source of revenue, and then repackage it as their own product. Not really fair use IMO.

How does that work? Is it a kind of infringement without substantial similarity?

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#283

Post by malfist »

2ndorderthought wrote: post #237
chungusamongus wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slippery slope, false dilemma, etc. What other fallacies do you have in your utility belt, batman?

How did you know I was Bruce wayne?

Where's my goddamn electric car Bruce?

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#284

Post by AnthonyMouse »

KPGv2 wrote: post #268
throwawayIche9j wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. That's not to say that something damaging wasn't done, but nothing was stolen. Stealing/theft requires deprivation of property. It's like receiving a normal nonlethal punch in the face and calling it murder. Murder requires someone dying. > Theft [...] is the act of taking another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. --- ht…

My God, I can't believe chodes are still playing this "how many angels can you fit on the head of a pin" navel gazing semantic argument. Thirty years at least, it was all you saw on fin de ciecle Slashdot from anyone with a six-digit UID. No one cares about your hyper literalist meaning of "theft," that's not the goddamn point. Christ, this place looks like Reddit more and more. This isn't a court of law. We don't ha…

> If you replaced "theft" with "copyright infringement" in the comment you had such a problem with, what meaningfully changes besides we all have about five additional brain cells?

The obvious difference that copyright is subject to fair use and various other limitations that personal property isn't.

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#285

Post by protocolture »

modeless wrote: post #180

Funny how people are suddenly on Elsevier's side. It's clear to me that AI training is transformative fair use under existing law. Maybe this will be the case to prove it.

>It's clear to me that AI training is transformative fair use under existing law.

I wouldn't even go that far. Its an entirely new product. Its like the guy who sold you the keyboard demanding royalties for the software you built.

That the person who wrote the book couldn't predict a new use case for the book in training LLMs, is irrelevant. The book isn't in the LLM. Its not being sold with the LLM. Its one of billions of tools used to create the LLM.

People try and sell this as the AI companies extracting value from the poor little IP holders like Disney. Its maddening. That content is your cultural heritage. It already belongs to you, just some idiot has been granted a lifetime of exclusive exploitation. An LLM is trained on data you already own. Disney et al wants to exploit the new technology to extract even more money out of stuff created often decades ago.

At absolute worst its reverse engineering, which was supposed to be fair use protected in the US but apparently that's been somewhat eroded.

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#287

Post by visarga »

rvz wrote: post #206
modeless wrote: post #180

Funny how people are suddenly on Elsevier's side. It's clear to me that AI training is transformative fair use under existing law. Maybe this will be the case to prove it.

> It's clear to me that AI training is transformative fair use under existing law. Maybe this will be the case to prove it. That is not what this case is about. It is more about the illegal violation and piracy of copyrighted content done by Meta for commercial use and Zuck knew they were doing it. Why did Anthropic settle [0] with a multi-billion dollar payout to authors after commercializing their LLMs that was tra…

I think copyright is far for being the most important aspect related to AI, it's geopolitical and economical. And even if it was the most important, there is only a case to be made for 1. that copy used to train models and 2. rare or induced regurgitation by targeted prompting.

The original work is not replicated identically, why would we replicate a work when it can be more easily seen in original or replaced with an alternative options online. We use AI to produce new outputs to new situations. We already have had drives and networking for plain copying.

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#288

Post by jmye »

spongebobstoes wrote: post #164
ipython wrote: post #36

Just gonna say... Aaron Swartz faced years of prison time and ultimately decided to take his own life... for downloading scientific journal articles ... to share freely with the world (aka not even profiting from it). But a multi-billion dollar corporation downloading millions of copyrighted creative works so that they can reshape the entire labor market by training a new type of artificial intelligence model on that…

Aaron Swartz was treated unjustly because copyright sucks. we should oppose such laws and treatment, not wield them as retributive tools against our opponents it is wrong to advocate for everyone to be treated equally unjustly. better to advocate for the removal of the bad laws/structures

> not wield them as retributive tools against our opponents

No, we should apply them equally to Mark Fucking Zuckerberg (which is decidedly not retributive, however much you want to make an emotional appeal) until such time as they are repealed as laws. It’s not really that complicated.

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#289

Post by jmye »

spongebobstoes wrote: post #211
ipython wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be easier to advocate for the reform of those laws if they were actually applied evenly. I’m not calling for its use as a “retributive tool”. Just that it be applied evenly.

advocating for more punishment under copyright law is directly opposed to reform or removal of the laws court precedent is a useful tool of advocacy

[flagged]

Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement

#290

Post by alex1138 »

fzil wrote: post #235
LastTrain wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Psst. The Epstein Files are the distraction…

i thought the iran war was distraction from the epstein files. i'm losing all track of all these distractions.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN