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

361–370 of 484 posts

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

#361

Post by watwut »

warkdarrior wrote: post #328
citadel_melon wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One could imagine a different legal standards for recreational, research, and commercial uses.

> One could imagine a different legal standards for recreational, research, and commercial uses. Meta used allegedly stolen copyrighted materials to train a model they shared for free with the whole world. Is this a recreational use?

No it is not recreational use. And no, they are not freely sharing it. It is use to build a monopoly, make hones competition impossible and plan charge as much possible on it.

It is the same playbook everytime. We dont have to be naive and pretend meta is doing something for other peoples benefit.

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

#362

Post by yorwba »

pessimizer wrote: post #94
yorwba wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From [0]: "In fiscal year 2017, there were 80 copyright/trademark infringement offenders who accounted for 0.1% of all offenders sentenced under the guidelines." This is such a low number that I assume most prosecuted cases are settled without ever making it to sentencing, or alternatively copyright infringement is just hardly ever prosecuted criminally at all.

I don't understand how the fact that 80 people were prosecuted for copyright violation in one year is an argument that one person shouldn't be prosecuted for copyright violation.

I don't think anyone in this thread made that particular argument.

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

#363

Post by strathmeyer »

glaslong wrote: post #335

All those lawsuits against students who downloaded but didn't even redistribute mp3s. Less than a fair use transformation. Just the file download itself. ... Lesson learned: those students should have stolen millions instead!

[dead]

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

#364

Post by tabs_or_spaces »

Why is there only a fine and not also the seizure/forfeiture of the stolen property and the derivative works/products built on it?

Like the fine means nothing to meta, and they'll still be the beneficiaries of their infringement.

In this current state, you really just need to have enough money to bypass this lawsuit and be on your way.

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

#365

Post by coolThingsFirst »

I love how there's not even a class action lawsuit against AI companies that stole the work of everyone to train their models on.

Who gave permission to Anthropic/ClosedAI to scan hundreds of thousands of books to feed to their systems which they commercially sell. Why is this the new normal. Even GitHub a month ago was like if you don't opt out we will read even your private repos for AI training.

Tech is turning into next level BS, I don't know if it always was like this but this has pierced even the very bottom.

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

#366

Post by Quarondeau »

qarl wrote: post #96
Quarondeau wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This goes back to the original purpose of copyright, which is to serve as an economic incentive for individual creators and artists to make more art, by securing exclusive rights to use their own works commercially for a specified time. The goal is both the creation of more works, but also to protect the economic viability of artists. This principle is quite universal and can be found in many places, including the US…

But my question is about your point of scale. I don't understand why it should be allowed for one savant to study and answer questions about one book, but wrong for a company to hire one million savants to answer questions about one million books. And I'm asking where in the law or case law this is supported.

That's not what I said. The concern is not about "answering questions" about original works. That would probably be acceptable at any scale. It is whether the approach foreseeably results in the creation of market substitutes that compete with original works.

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

#367

Post by protocolture »

eloisius wrote: post #353
protocolture wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>don’t use my book to train your LLM. What makes you think you are entitled to tell people what they can and cant do with data they purchased (or otherwise acquired) from you. Extremely honest question. I just cant put myself in your shoes. Like if I had written anything useful I would be overwhelmingly flattered that my content be considered so worthy for inclusion. Your profile suggests that you are a philosopher.…

> What makes you think you are entitled to tell people what they can and cant do with data they purchased Hundreds of years of copyright law. I bought a copy of Windows, but I’m not allowed to modify that data with a cracker and sell a bootleg DVD of it. I should edit to clarify that I’m not a big fan of Lars Ulrich or Disney, but I don’t think we’re going to get a win here for the recreational IP pirates. What’s mor…

I mean, the comparable situation would be, being allowed to sell something you created on Windows.

But in abstract you should absolutely be able to modify and sell windows.

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

#368

Post by protocolture »

watwut wrote: post #361
warkdarrior wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One could imagine a different legal standards for recreational, research, and commercial uses. Meta used allegedly stolen copyrighted materials to train a model they shared for free with the whole world. Is this a recreational use?

No it is not recreational use. And no, they are not freely sharing it. It is use to build a monopoly, make hones competition impossible and plan charge as much possible on it. It is the same playbook everytime. We dont have to be naive and pretend meta is doing something for other peoples benefit.

>And no, they are not freely sharing it

Are you unable to access this page?

https://www.llama.com/llama-downloads/

Or this one?

https://lmstudio.ai/models/meta/llama-3.3-70b

>It is use to build a monopoly

How?

>We dont have to be naive and pretend meta is doing something for other peoples benefit.

Meta benefits from the current war of open model competition, but we also benefit from it. In particular, participating in all this makes it hard for them to pull the ladder up when the market changes. They will have to justify why whatever new hotness is better than these existing models already on our hard drives.

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

#369

Post by eloisius »

protocolture wrote: post #367
eloisius wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What makes you think you are entitled to tell people what they can and cant do with data they purchased Hundreds of years of copyright law. I bought a copy of Windows, but I’m not allowed to modify that data with a cracker and sell a bootleg DVD of it. I should edit to clarify that I’m not a big fan of Lars Ulrich or Disney, but I don’t think we’re going to get a win here for the recreational IP pirates. What’s mor…

I mean, the comparable situation would be, being allowed to sell something you created on Windows. But in abstract you should absolutely be able to modify and sell windows.

To continue your analogy, I had to pay for Windows before I was allowed to create something with it, or acquire a license for under terms they set forth. If AI companies stopped at the public domain, then my argument wouldn't really hold up, but they didn't do that. They acquired everyone's copyrighted works without regard for the license and now they're, in the most charitable interpretation, using them to create derivative works.

And before you give me an analogy about how someone could listen to Pink Floyd and then produce works inspired by their influence yada yada: Someone is a human being with human rights, and if we're going to start pretending that training an LLM is in any way analogous to human consumption and creativity, and not an industrial process that encodes input data into a digital artifact, then let's start by saying LLMs have human rights and cannot be owned by a company that charges for access to them.

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

#370

Post by m4x »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #340
m4x wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A better analogy would be that you do original research or work and produce a valuable book. Somebody else looks at your work, decides it has value, and reproduces it in a new book under their name. The new book is cheaper, or easier to find, or for whatever reason displaces your original book created through your own research and investment. Now somebody else is profiting off your creativity or work, without payment…

So for example, when Disney sees value in public domain stories like Cinderella, Rapunzel/Tangled or Snow White, and they make movies out of them, profiting from the creativity and work of the Brothers Grimm without paying anything to their estate, or high school plays do Shakespeare, that seems unethical to you? Would it be fair for Greece to do retroactive term extensions all the way back to Plato and then sue anyo…

Your examples, as you say, are all public domain. Are all the works we train LLMs on public domain too? Was the original book in my analogy in the public domain? What do you think about training on material that isn't yet in the public domain?
Post reply on HN