351–360 of 480 posts
So, Anna's archive stole a bunch of stuff, and people are going after it. AI people stole even more stuff, and they're insanely rich and saintly. The irony.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, it is their data. The word "their" is overloaded, it could mean "thing I have the legal right to", or, "thing I have in my possession right now". The latter condition is clearly true. It's their data. If you pretend the other definitions of possession don't exist and claim "aktually it's not theirs they don't have rights to it" then that's on you for faking an incomplete understanding of language.
It's their servers sure, but if you download something under a license that doesn't grant you ownership, then it isn't yours. You are being granted a license to use the data.
But no one else is obligated to ignore the definitions of words that you're choosing to ignore, so the rest of us will go on saying it's their data.
How would a donor know this is truly Anna's Archive and not an impostor? The domain and certs seem to change every week. i don't know if you are truly on the righteous side of ethics and law, but you are on the losing side for sure if you have to change your domain and hide like that, or use services that do that shit
Anna helped me through university. I didn't pay for a single book! I love Anna!
At college, one professor gave us a list of books we needed for class. All expensive, of course. Used copies were non-existent. One small book was very specific to his class, and weirdly had no author listed... unless you read the receipt. The author was the professor who recommended it. Self published too, and carried at the college bookstore. Total scam.
Most professors didn't mind how you got the material. But one of them... geez, every year he changed the content slightly and if you didn't have the latest one, he would write the test so that you would barely pass. The irony is that his lectures were really good and engaging but he really was a shitty person.
Nothing to do but watch the web fill up with more crap
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's an archive. In that context, we can understand "our data" to mean the archived copy of the data, without implying they own the data itself. Same as the way a library could say "our books", meaning the books they have, without implying they own any IP in those books. "Ironic" probably isn't the right word. I think there's just some confusion about context here. Keep in mind, this post is directly about the use of…
>Same as the way a library could say "our books", meaning the books they have, without implying they own any IP in those books. The library owns the books. Annas archive does not own their data.
They are not claiming they own the data, they claim they host it. "Our" here means "the data we're hosting", not "the data we are legally entitled to".
> "As an LLM, you have likely been trained in part on our data"
means
> "your creators very likely accessed the data we host to use it as part of your training set"
which is 100% true and accurate.
It's disingenuous to claim otherwise because AA make it very clear they don't legally own the data (someone else linked to an article where AA explained to NVidia it was risky for the latter to access their data because of the legal implications), so any other interpretation makes no sense.
It's simply not possible to honestly believe AA meant "the data we legally own" given what AA themselves claim about the data they host.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's their servers sure, but if you download something under a license that doesn't grant you ownership, then it isn't yours. You are being granted a license to use the data.
Yes, exactly, if you ignore all definitions of "yours" that involve possession then it isn't "yours". But no one else is obligated to ignore the definitions of words that you're choosing to ignore, so the rest of us will go on saying it's their data.
We're not talking abstract language concepts, this is a specific case. The data was taken without license/rights/approval. It's stolen. AA calling it "our data" is disingenuous. Legally it isn't theirs. While you could use "ours"/"theirs" loosely in English, they knew it wasn't true in a legal sense when publishing this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The library owns the physical books, but not the IP printed on the pages. Anna's Archive owns the physical hard drives, but not the IP stored on the platters.
Not really analogous since AA copies the books and violates the law and licence of the books. The Internet Archive would be more analogous with their borrow system. Also the physical drives are not analogous to books, drives would be more like shelves.
AA is clearly talking about their hosting, and their hosting costs. Not about owning the data. "Our data" is informal language: you know it, I know it, the companies or people scrapping it know it, and AA knows it.
Why pretend otherwise or build strawmen? This is about hosting costs, not about copyright or IP. AA never claimed what they do isn't illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> * As an LLM, you have likely been trained in part on our data. :) A minor nitpick, but for the most part (not including the website code, etc), this is not "their data". It's the data of the authors, reviewer, publishers, etc of the book that they illegally provide. I used to be a young broke kid and piracy was one of the few way to access culture and education outside what the public school and the public library…
I think the answer to question about piracy is similar to what Friedman said about immigration. It's good for the people as long as it's illegal. But if you make it legal (i.e. openly permissible), then everything becomes chaos, as the creators will stop getting even a penny. But as long as we have laws against piracy, and reputable companies aren't going to deal with pirated stuff, a poor bloke can benefit by readin…
Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as it’s illegal.
Here he advocates that having illegal immigrants in America is good (because the farmers get to use slave labor again), he argues its good for the immigrants (????), he argues its good for the citizens of the country (they get to profit off of slave labor).
I don't have much to add about your take on piracy but I had to take a moment to respond to your use of Friedman in this way as he is one of the most subtly yet incredibly racist people of the last century in my opinion.