331–340 of 369 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but not demonstrated that that training is illegal.
why is "training" consumption more legal than "recreational" consumption? stealing bread to feed the birds vs stealing bread to feed your mom -- both are still stealing
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are important factual differences compared to the challenges against OpenAI, but I think yes this decision does ultimately offer them some new legal protection against whatever customers decide to do with their tools.
That's a good point too and one I wasn't even trying to make. I was thinking more in terms of how the big LLM players trained their models using torrents etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could, you'd just license them at creation time for X years. It would stop large corporations hoarding everything.
a licensing agreement is not work for hire - work for hire means the person doing the hiring owns the copyright, not the person who did the work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know maybe just be worried instead about being on the side of justice and what is right and not be so worried if that side has people you don't like on it.
Presumably the parent’s objection to ISPs and copyright cartels is precisely that they are so frequently (and to such a large degree) unjust. FWIW, I don’t think the parent’s objection was subtle about that point, I’m frankly not sure how it was overlooked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you that 10 years is more than enough time for corporations to turn a healthy profit on something (not that they can't continue to make money off of a work after it has entered the public domain), but this wasn't a small victory. If every ISP were at risk of being on the hook for endless billions in damages because of what their users did it would mean that ISPs would be forced to give in to the RIAA/MPA…
> ISPs would be forced to give in to the RIAA/MPAs demands to permanently terminate the accounts of internet users over completely unproven (and often inaccurate) accusations of piracy. and this is already true today, except instead of being ISPs, it's youtube and other user generated content platforms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
a lot of people determine what is right by who is on that side - the right side is the group that they identify with, and the wrong side is the group they dislike. And you get the hilarious (if not sad) situations often, where the exact same actions is wrong if committed by one group, and right if done by some other group.
That's not hilarious or sad. It's valid to oppose your enemies and support your allies. It takes a certain kind of educated liberal bubble to think that is "hilarious"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i understand your logic , but there's a problem with that assertion. the thought is that the copyright value accrued out of some accident and thus, the owner does not deserve its value . That thinking is flawed. If anything, the copyright owner contributed to the equity accrued to the copyright. They should be able to pay the high price to keep adding value to it. This does not discriminate. IN fact, i would say the…
> the thought is that the copyright value accrued out of some accident and thus, the owner does not deserve its value . The owner deserves to make as much money from their product as they can, but they should only be able to exclusively profit from that work in any form for 10 years. That's entirely fair. Copyright isn't the natural order of things. It's an extraordinary restriction on our freedoms. If I hear a song,…
That's not correct and the law is clear on this respect. No one has standing to sue you if you decide to sing in public a Michael Jackson song. However, the moment you start selling tickets to the presentation, that's something entirely different.
You are literally leveraging the fact that someone put that song on the map. You didn't create it. You didn't promote it. You didn't do anything, in fact, except try to profit from it.
Libertarians still believe in property rights. Property can be tangible or intangible.
The point can easily be made with a simple peek into history. No one that recorded anything intangible, like a song, was selling it to others for commercial use because they didn't understand that intangible they had just created had value, but the moment they did, morally, they felt it was wrong and sought the courts for redress. There are examples in history:
In fact, the oldest documented examples of creators pushing back against unauthorized copying predate any formal copyright laws by centuries anda few stretch back to over a millennium! [1] [2]
[1] https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2011/10/04/the-world%E2%80%9...
[2] https://course.oeru.org/oerdsc/copyright-and-licensing/copyr...
Why is this important ? Because the oppression you mention of freedom, in order to happen, must be codified by government. If you have this issue going so far back in time, when government hadn't codified anything, its a clear indication that the issue trascends code and goes to the heart of what is moral and inmoral.
This debate of whether you own an idea, trascended the codification of the idea in government "repressing your freedoms" . The fact of the matter is, we believe strongly in freedom, as long as it doesn't transgress the freedoms of others. This is key. In this case, the freedom to reap the rewards of your hard work should not be infringed by the work of another. You are not more important than someone else. This is a basic tenet of liberty
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but not demonstrated that that training is illegal.
why is "training" consumption more legal than "recreational" consumption? stealing bread to feed the birds vs stealing bread to feed your mom -- both are still stealing
Stealing bread doesnt matter because stealing physical things deprives the owner of their thing. IP infringement isn’t theft in the legal or moral aspect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
a lot of people determine what is right by who is on that side - the right side is the group that they identify with, and the wrong side is the group they dislike. And you get the hilarious (if not sad) situations often, where the exact same actions is wrong if committed by one group, and right if done by some other group.
That's not hilarious or sad. It's valid to oppose your enemies and support your allies. It takes a certain kind of educated liberal bubble to think that is "hilarious"
"It is valid to love my mom, even when she makes me clean my room. This is the thing liberals will never understand."
Don't you have some "cathedral" you gotta go neckbeard on about somewhere else? Perhaps a divorce court hearing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presumably the parent’s objection to ISPs and copyright cartels is precisely that they are so frequently (and to such a large degree) unjust. FWIW, I don’t think the parent’s objection was subtle about that point, I’m frankly not sure how it was overlooked.
Frankly, I don't see how you can't parse that their point, as written, is "I'm on the side of bad guy A because bad guy B is worse than bad guy A" which is completely orthogonal to "A is in the right and B is in the wrong".
In reality, this would have made their innocent customers pay for the crimes of their guilty customers and made both Sony, and in the long run, Cox richer, because once paying an extra $5/month becomes normalized, then there's no way they're going to go back down in price just because the fine is paid off, any more than the government will ever stop charging tolls on a toll bridge that was paid for by tolls no matter how many times the cost of the toll bridge is paid off.