Live data from Hacker News

Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK

app.dealroom.co

411–413 of 413 posts

Re: Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK

#411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love low-hanging fruit in the morning. You managed to pick three companies with documented histories involving violations or enforcement actions concerning workers’ schedules and safety, religious & racial discrimination, hazardous waste, and multimillion-dollar wage disputes. Burlington is particularly funny as an example because the government was literally ordering it to return more than $1.3 million to workers…

So fundamentally, your argument is that employing people ruins their lives. $1.3 million across how many hundreds or thousands of employees is not all that much each. Yes - they have every right to justice and to pursue what they were owed. And the company should be penalized. But still, they collected what, 97 or 98% of their rightful wage? And contributions to Social Security, and most likely some healthcare benefi…

How on earth did you get there? My argument is that corporations should operate in the framework of the law (though evidently that is pretty fungible in the US). Are you saying you’re OK with your employer cropping 2-3% of your paycheck? The Social Security and healthcare point is even more bizarre. You make it sound like a charitable donation. That the victims of wage theft had to put up an exorbitant legal battle to collect…well, most of of what they were owed could probably be called “life-changing” for some of the victims.

You’re partially right though, a couple mil here and there is a drop in the bucket against most corporate earnings. Sort of makes you wonder if the system is operating like that purposefully, as in, a systemic attribute.

You didn’t even attempt to touch Ulta’s toxic waste problem lol

Re: Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK

#412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the link but: > The tldr is you really can't copyright raw surveillance video, but you can apparently lightly edit to turn it into a creative work that is copyrightable. The article doesn't say that, it doesn't speak to CCTV surveillance footage. It discusses rare cases like cameras falling from aircraft, or animals pressing the button to take a photo. I can see your line of reasoning about there being zer…

The people up thread who replied to my original message give some other references for why this is the case. I agree with you that it is very surprising that it works this way, that this is considered a settled legal decision. From the techdirt piece, seen above: "To license out copyright, there must be creative contribution. This can arise from cutting/editing the video in a creative manner. Since there is no other…

> The people up thread who replied to my original message give some other references for why this is the case

I'm afraid I'm not seeing it. Which comments specifically? Please link directly, rather than describing them.

> From the techdirt piece, seen above: [...]

My question was specifically about surveillance footage. The law doesn't work on perfect logical consistency, we can't infer an ironclad answer where there's no explicit law or legal precedent.

Another web search turned up a reddit discussion [0] which says that in the case of US law it's unclear, but that under UK law it explicitly is subject to copyright, under a special non-creative films category.

This Quora thread (sorry, couldn't find better sources) supports this. [1]

> You may feel inclined to call bullshit on this, but it’s actually the ongoing revenue model for "revised" editions of Beethoven, Bach and older."

Sure, I'm aware of that, but it's not the same question.

[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/COPYRIGHT/comments/1j7y8i0/cctv_foo...

[1] https://www.quora.com/Can-one-claim-copyright-on-CCTV-footag...

Re: Oracle bans AI-generated code from OpenJDK

#413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a twist on the Scorpion and the Frog story. In other words, Larry Ellison is going to do what Larry is going to do, and there's no use wondering why. Usually, that's to make money and sue people, at any expense. It's in his nature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog

Abusers say "that's just how I am" which is my point. Just because it's his nature doesn't mean it is at all natural.

I do understand what you're saying, but at the same time, of course it's natural -- it's, well he's, a thing that exists.

We don't have to like it. From Larry's perspective, our natures are strange and perhaps repulsive to him.

Post reply on HN