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

291–300 of 410 posts

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

#291

Post by EMIRELADERO »

wnevets wrote: post #280
EMIRELADERO wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That has nothing to do with IP, it's a personality rights claim. The decision explicitly refuses to involve Copyright, saying that voices (and by proxy the styles) are not copyrightable. What mattered there were specific rights of publicity, not IP.

> That has nothing to do with IP, it's a personality rights claim. The US Supreme Court disagrees, the right of publicity and intellectual property law are explicitly linked. > The broadcast of a performer’s entire act may undercut the economic value of that performance in a manner analogous to the infringement of a copyright or patent. — Justice White

That's just an analog in an opinion, it's not binding. Also, that's just a new IP term then, but we were talking about copyright, not any abstract form of IP.

Again, show me an example where an artist's style was used for copyright infringement in court. Can you produce even one example?

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

#292

Post by nadermx »

hulitu wrote: post #287
nadermx wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So when someone steals something from you, you no longer have it. Yet here they paid the judge(s) because the person who's been "robbed" still has their thing?

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

#293

Post by 93po »

flyingcircus3 wrote: post #232
93po wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People see actions and make assumptions on intentions behind those actions. They also make assumptions on who actually called for those actions, or the percent to which people contributed to those decisions. If you don't have a tape recorder showing Trump saying "Fire Shira, I don't like what she did and she needs to get out" then you are making assumptions both for his reasons and his involvement. No one has that ta…

Now apply this reasoning to Trump standing in Air Force One and saying that he would bring someone back of the Supreme Court said to. It's on video.

I spent 10+ minutes trying to find anything Trump has said on camera about the copyright office, and went through the only video I could find of Trump on air force one in the past week to see any references to this, and saw none.

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

#294

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

Zambyte wrote: post #288
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 abo…

> The same way that they made money for thousands of years before copyright, really.

We didn't have modern novelists a thousand years ago. We didn't have mass production until ~500 years ago, and copyright came in in the 1700's. We didn't have mass produced pulp fiction like we do today until the 20th century. There is little copyright-less historical precedent to refer to here, even if we carve out the few hundred years between the printing press and copyright, it's not as though everyone was mass consuming novels, the literacy rate was abysmal. I wonder what artist yearns for the 1650s.

> If their art is good, of course people will pay them.

You say this as if it were a fact, but that's not axiomatic. Once the first copy is in the wild it's fair game for anyone to copy it as they will. Who is paying them? Should the artists return to the days of needing a wealthy patron? Is patreon the answer to all of our problems?

> Maybe selling books?

But how? To who? A publishing house isn't going to pick them up, knowing that any other publishing house can start selling the same book the minute it shows to be popular, and if you're self publishing and you're starting to make good numbers then the publishing houses can eat you alive.

> 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.

No, the question is if ordinary people could make a living off their novels without copyright. It's very hard today, but not impossible. Without copyright it wouldn't be.

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

#295

Post by lavezzi »

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's tonnes, this is a baffling question.

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

#296

Post by whamlastxmas »

Zambyte wrote: post #233
93po wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright isn't about distribution, it's about creation. In reality the chances of getting in trouble is basically zero if you don't distribute it - who would know? But technically any creation, even in private, is violating copyright. Doesn't matter if you make money or put it on the internet. There is fair use, but fair is an affirmative defense to infringing copyright. By claiming fair use you are simultaneously a…

> Copyright isn't about distribution, it's about creation This is exactly wrong. You can copy all of Harry Potter into your journal as many times as you want legally (creating copies) so long as you do not distribute it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_St...

"copyright law assigns a set of exclusive rights to authors: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly"

"The owner of a copyright has the exclusive right to do and authorize others to do the following: To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;To prepare derivative works based upon the work;"

"Commonly, this involves someone creating or distributing"

https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/

"U.S. copyright law provides copyright owners with the following exclusive rights: Reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. Prepare derivative works based upon the work."

https://internationaloffice.berkeley.edu/students/intellectu...

"Copyright infringement occurs when a work is reproduced, distributed, displayed, performed or altered without the creator’s permission."

There are endless legitimate sources for this. Copyright protects many things, not just distribution. It very clearly disallows the creation and production of copyrighted works.

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

#297

Post by breakingcups »

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.

Well, Facebook torrented the copyrighted material they used for training, which means they distributed all those files too. With the personal approval of Zuck. What is the difference according to you?

Source: https://futurism.com/the-byte/facebook-trained-ai-pirated-bo...

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

#298

Post by lavezzi »

renewiltord wrote: post #79

I wonder when general internet sentiment moved from pro-piracy to IP maximalism. Fascinating shift.

Very recently, because historically the majority of people engaging in it aren't looking to profit from piracy.

The general public has been lectured for decades about how piracy is morally wrong, but as soon as startups and corporations are in it for profit, everybody looks away?

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

#299

Post by stevenAthompson »

mjburgess wrote: post #273
stevenAthompson wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I fear the lack of our ability to measure your mind might render you without many of the legal or moral protections you imagine you have. Society doesn't need to measure my mind, they need to measure the output of it. If I behave like a conscious being, I am a conscious being. Alternatively you might phrase it such that "Anything that claims to be conscious must be assumed to be conscious." It's the only answer to…

In your case, it isnt the output that matters. Your saying "I'm conscious" isn't why we attribute consciousness to you. We would do so regardless of your ability to verbalise anything in particular. Your radical behaviourism seems an advantage to you when you want to delete one disfavoured part of copyright law, but I assure you, it isn't in your interest. It doesnt universalise well at all. You do not want to be def…

> We would do so regardless of your ability to verbalise anything in particular

I don't mean to say that they literally have to speak the words by using their meat to make the air vibrate. Just that, presuming it has some physical means, it be capable (and willing) to express it in some way.

> It's a obcene sort of self-injury to assume that whatever kind of radical behaviourism is necessary to hype the LLM is the right sort.

I appreciate why you might feel that way. However, I feel it's far worse to pretend we have some undetectable magic within us that allows us to perceive the "realness" of others peoples consciousness by other than physical means.

Fundamentally, you seem to be arguing that something with outputs identical to a human is not human (or even human like), and should not be viewed within the same framework. Do you see how dangerous an idea that is? It is only a short hop from "Humans are different than robots, because of subjective magic" to "Humans are different than , because of subjective magic."

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

#300

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

int_19h wrote: post #112
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first article is saying that "Copyright is bad because of corporations", and I can kind of get behind that, especially the very long term copyrights that have lost the intent, but the second article says that artists will be happier without copyright if we just solve capitalism first. I don't know about you, but that reads to me like "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch you must first invent the univers…

The problem of "how do artists earn enough money to eat?" is legitimate, but I don't think it's a good idea to solve it by making things that inherently don't work like real property to work like it, just so that we can shove them into the same framework. And this is exactly what copyright does - it takes information, which can be copied essentially for free by its very fundamental nature, and tries to make it scarce…

The end product being inexpensive is a good thing - it means that the producer can sell it well below the cost it took to produce it, otherwise a novel would cost whatever it takes for Stephen King to live for 3 months.

I feel like you're shoving all information under the same label. The most profitable corporations are trading in information that isn't subject to copyright, and it's facts - how you drive, what you eat, where you live. It's newly generated ideas. Maybe it is in how the data is sorted, but they aren't copyrighting that either.

If we're going to overthrow artificial entrenchments of capitalism, I feel like there's better places to start than a lot of copyright. Does it need changes? Absolutely, there's certainly exploitation, but I still don't see "get rid of copyright entirely" as being a good approach. Weirdly, it's one of the places that people are arguing for that. Sometimes the criminal justice system convicts the wrong person, and there should be reform. It's also often criticized as a measure of control for capitalistic oligarchs. Should step one be getting rid of the legal system entirely?

Post reply on HN