Remember when nerds loved saying "information wants to be free"?
Remember when the nerds said, "The law should apply equally to all"?
That was never a common saying of nerds. But it is true.
Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement
441–450 of 484 posts
Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement
#442Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also find it funny, I said this regarding the other thread and article[0] '"They then copied those stolen fruits" How are these fruits "stolen" if they still have what was allegedley stolen? Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985): The Supreme Court ruled that the unauthorized sale of phonorecords of copyrighted musical compositions does not constitute "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" goods under the Nat…
>How are these fruits "stolen" if they still have what was allegedley stolen? If you write a book and I take it and embed its knowledge into my product that is so pervasive that no one needs to buy your book any more (and I don't even credit you so no one knows where that knowledge came from), to you really still have what was stolen? And I didn't even buy a copy of your book to copy it.
What if I read your book (and a bunch of other books), and use what I learned to write my own book? Have I "stolen" your book?
Facts are not copyrightable. Only your particular way of expressing those facts is copyrightable.
Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement
#443Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re not saying anything I haven’t heard 100 times in the media. How many more “Trump bad” slanderous narratives that wind up debunked will you believe before you ask yourself if you were wrong? I’m a really good judge of character. When folks don’t think for themselves, and instead join in on unfounded slander campaigns, it usually doesn’t speak well of their character. I won’t join in. I don’t mind being insulted…
Trump is a rapist, per the courts, per Ivana Trump, and per statements of Epstein victims. Trump is the most corrupt president in US history, by a few orders of magnitude. Trump lies continuously, obviously, ridiculously. Hell, how many times has the Iran war "ended" in the last 2 months, per Trump? You do not have decent morals if you excuse Trump. Fuck off with your calm fascist game.
None of those words carry any weight, sorry. That whole line of attack is just not credible. It’s comical that anyone could possibly think it would be effective in 2026.
Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement
#444Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would it be accurate to say market cap valuations are intrinsically valuable because they drive people to buy shares by projecting success?
No, market cap is a representation of the expected future success, but share cost depends on this expectation. Higher expected future success, higher share cost. So, the only reason to buy shares is if you expect the market cap to increase. (I think, someone please correct me of I'm wrong?)
[deleted]
Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement
#445Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's frustrating is that I don't even consider infringement to be a crime. Why are you all so upset about this, rather than his real crimes?
I'm a copyright abolitionist. I don't care at all that they're training AIs on copyrighted works. I care a lot that they're not getting relentlessly hunted down by the copyright industry for it like all the "pirates" that came before them. The copyright industry has actually ruined lives by litigating their "infringement" nonsense. It's only fair that they go after this guy as well. His constant violation of people's…
"X shouldn't be illegal at all" and "I want this person or company I hate to be ruined for having done X" aren't mutually reasonable positions. Even less so when the person or company you hate has committed real crimes. Grow up.
Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement
#446Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do it literally all the time.
You pirate other people’s works for profit all the time?
Since when has Meta profited off of this shit? I don't know why their stock price hasn't cratered yet, but it's not because they're raking in the big cash training LLMs on 40 yr old cookbooks.
Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement
#447The title of the article and the content of the article are not the same. Zuck has been accused, according to the article, but then the article itself basically says that Meta was pursuing licensing and then at some point the business unit responsible for pursuing that licensing was told not to, presumably because there was a fair-use strategy of some sort in place so licensing would not be required.
I saw something about this. It would seem like it would be hard to obtain all of those licenses, probably impossible, and then if you want to go on to pirate more, that you licensed stuff kind of makes it look like you knew or believed you should've done it for all of them, which I think would make infringement willful, and imply some cognizance of guilt?
When you think about the objectives and constraints on the table, and how disproportionately light penalties imposed on large corporations can be, if you can muster any kind of crappy argument, doing absolutely zero licensing is the no-brainer clear win. You get all of the material. You avoid a massive cost. Then the tech friendly Federal courts of the Trump administration will interpret all of the laws as far as possible in your favor and impose the lightest penalties they reasonably can.
It's a no brainer. License none of it, it's more data, it's cheaper, it's easier, the win is blinding. But if you license, you pay so much, if you use anything you didn't license you've tipped your hand on cognizance of guilt, blahblah. The contrast is stark.
Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement
#448Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you replaced "theft" with "copyright infringement" in the comment you had such a problem with, what meaningfully changes besides we all have about five additional brain cells? The obvious difference that copyright is subject to fair use and various other limitations that personal property isn't.
Ever hear of Aaron swartz?
Aaron Swartz was charged under the CFAA, which isn't even copyright law, and the prosecution was widely condemned as draconian overreach.
Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement
#449Just gonna say... Aaron Swartz faced years of prison time and ultimately decided to take his own life... for downloading scientific journal articles ... to share freely with the world (aka not even profiting from it). But a multi-billion dollar corporation downloading millions of copyrighted creative works so that they can reshape the entire labor market by training a new type of artificial intelligence model on that…
Well, Meta also shared their AI models freely with world
They released products for free use, they didn't release the code of those models for free. Which IMO would make some of what they did here right.
Re: Zuckerberg 'Personally Authorized and Encouraged' Meta's Copyright Infringement
#450Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
You're framing this as an ethical question, but copyright term lengths are essentially arbitrary. They're set by the government, as are the boundaries of fair use. At which point you're making a circular argument. That it's bad if it's illegal and that it should be illegal because it's bad. So what happens if someone argues the opposite? That it's not unethical if it's fair use and then it should be fair use because it's not unethical.