371–380 of 505 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that copyrighting is automatic at the instant of creation, that is, um, debatable. Slapping 3 lines in LICENSE.TXT doesn’t override the Berne convention.
Are you claiming that an author cannot place their work in the public domain?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The word "work" is being overloaded here, their work as in output might matter but I am asking why they must work at all in the first place. If your answer is because they must procure money to survive, that is an economic failure, not one of AI. Jobs are simply a roundabout way of distributing money for output to be produced, if an AI can produce the output, the job need not exist. This is the same argument that has…
Remember, we are discussing art here, not white collar tech jobs. AI coming for my job would be unpleasant and devastating, but that, like you said, is an economic problem. That I agree on. I don't think there is a way to continue this particular branch of this argument without devolving into a debate on the value of human life like a couple of Macedonian philosophers - suffice to say, my point of view is that the wo…
The reason for humans existing is not because of the output they produce (indeed, that is dystopic), humans have worth inherently, regardless of what they output. This is also what nihilists have figured out, so maybe that is something you should look into if you seriously have such an opinion as expressed in your last paragraph.
> The anonymous programmers have repeatedly insisted Copilot could, and would, generate code identical to what they had written themselves, which is a key pillar of their lawsuit since there is an identicality requirement for their DMCA claim. However, Judge Tigar earlier ruled the plaintiffs hadn't actually demonstrated instances of this happening, which prompted a dismissal of the claim with a chance to amend it. I…
The main issue, as I see it, is that they took copyrighted material and made new commercial products without compensating (let alone acquiring permission from) the rights holders, ie their suppliers. Specifically, they sneaked a fair use sticker on mass AI training, with neither precedent nor a ruling anywhere. Fair use originates in times before there were even computers. (Imo it’s as outrageous as applying a free-mushroom-picking-on-non-cultivated-land law to justify industrial scale farming on private land.) That’s what should be challenged.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not actually true. There's nothing stopping you from producing derivative works. Publishing and/or profiting from other people's work does have some restrictions though. There's actually a huge and thriving community of people publishing derivative works, in a not-for-profit basis, on Archive of Our Own. (Among other places.)
> There's actually a huge and thriving community of people publishing derivative works, in a not-for-profit basis, on Archive of Our Own. (Among other places.) Yes, and none of those people are making a living at creating things. That's why they are allowed by the copyright owners to do what they're doing--because it's not commercial. Try to actually sell a derivative work of something you don't own the copyright for…
Again, not true. One of the most famous examples is likely Naomi Novik, who is a bestselling author, in addition to a prolific producer of derivative works published on AO3. Many other commercially successful authors publish derivative works on this platform as well.
> It is true that without our current copyright regime, the "industries" that produce Star Wars, Disney, etc. products would not exist in their current form. But does that mean works like those would not have been created? Does it mean we would have less of them? I strongly doubt it. What it would mean is that more of the profits from those works would go to the actual creative people instead of middlemen.
Speculate all you want about an alternative system, but you really don't know what would have happened, or what would happen moving forward.
This is pretty interesting, and I have conflicted feelings about the (seemingly obvious) outcome of this trial. I wonder, if MS and OpenAI win, does that mean it will be legal for anyone to take the leaked source code for a proprietary product, train an LLM on it, and then ask the LLM to emit a version of it that is different enough to avoid copyright infringement? That would be quite the double-edged sword for propr…
> Indeed, last year GitHub was said to have tuned its programming assistant to generate slight variations of ingested training code to prevent its output from being accused of being an exact copy of licensed software. If I, a human, were to: 1. Carefully read and memorize some copyrighted code. 2. Produce new code that is textually identical to that. But in the process of typing it up, I randomly mechanically tweak a…
You might not get your ass kicked. Copyright doesn't protect function, to the point where the court will assess the degree to which the style of the code can be separated from the function. In the even that they aren't separable, the code is not copyrightable. https://www.wardandsmith.com/articles/supreme-court-announce... https://easlerlaw.com/software-computer-code-copyrighted#:~:...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might not get your ass kicked. Copyright doesn't protect function, to the point where the court will assess the degree to which the style of the code can be separated from the function. In the even that they aren't separable, the code is not copyrightable. https://www.wardandsmith.com/articles/supreme-court-announce... https://easlerlaw.com/software-computer-code-copyrighted#:~:...
While correct, the example given is that they COPY the code, then make adjustments to hide the fact. I suspect this is still a copyright violation. It’s interesting that a judge sees it differently when it’s just run through a programme. I’m not a legal expert so I’m guessing it’s a bit more complex than the headline?
It seems to me that regardless of the outcome of this case, some developers do not want to have their code used to train LLMs. There may need to be a new license created to restrict this usage of software. Or, maybe developers will simply stop contributing open source. In today’s day and age, where open source code serves as a tool to pad Microsoft’s pockets, I certainly will not publish any of my software open sourc…
> I certainly will not publish any of my software open source, despite how much I would like to (under GPL) in order to help fellow developers. I think this is a rather radical approach. You're undermining the OSS movement because you dislike Microsoft (I do too). I think adding a clause or dual licensing your work is more effective at stopping big-tech funded AI crawlers than just not adhering to open source. You ca…
Not everyone is multi-generationally rich or absurdly frugal. Most people like having good jobs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it serve as a counterexample? Or did the predicted loss of memory function come to pass? Worth noting that people were smoking plain old opium back in those times; I'd be reluctant to apply their reasoning to fentanyl.
What are you talking about with your second paragraph? I can't tell if it's supposed to be an analogy or whether you actually think everyone was smoking opium back then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might not get your ass kicked. Copyright doesn't protect function, to the point where the court will assess the degree to which the style of the code can be separated from the function. In the even that they aren't separable, the code is not copyrightable. https://www.wardandsmith.com/articles/supreme-court-announce... https://easlerlaw.com/software-computer-code-copyrighted#:~:...
While correct, the example given is that they COPY the code, then make adjustments to hide the fact. I suspect this is still a copyright violation. It’s interesting that a judge sees it differently when it’s just run through a programme. I’m not a legal expert so I’m guessing it’s a bit more complex than the headline?
The distinction is pedantic but important, IMHO. AI doesn't explicitly copy either.