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

461–470 of 484 posts

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

#461

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #458
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

They are perfectly reasonable positions. "X shouldn't be illegal" implies that it is, in fact, currently illegal. Therefore Facebook and its executives and especially its CEO should absolutely suffer the full consequences of violating those laws, just like all of those people the copyright industry ruthlessly prosecuted. Anything less than this means it's rules for thee and not for me. Laws cease to have meaning when…

>They are perfectly reasonable positions. "X shouldn't be illegal" implies that it is, in fact, currently illegal.

"We were just following the rules" got people justifiably hanged not so many years ago. There must be principle behind what it is you would enforce, or you're not one of the good guys. If you give a shit about "currently illegal", I won't spend any more time listening to or worrying about what you think should be legal.

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

#462

Post by esseph »

lenerdenator wrote: post #407
ginko wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I guess the idea of incorporation is wrong then. Execs and major shareholder should absolutely be held personally held liable.

> Execs and major shareholder should absolutely be held personally held liable. In a way, they are. Those two groups are often the same due to incentives packages. The money lost to the fine is money not put in the earnings-per-share or R&D or whatever. That's the opportunity cost of paying the fine. The problem from the "discourage bad corporate behavior" standpoint is that you can generate enough money from breakin…

The penalty needs to be more than financial to really deter the crime.

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

#463

Post by phyzome »

UltraSane wrote: post #313
phyzome wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was intended as a warning, not an aspiration. Some people misunderstood.

No, it was always meant as a good thing and was usually said in the context of censorship, which copyright is really just a form of.

Some people meant it as a good thing.

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

#464

Post by blks »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #451
blks wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main point here is _using_ copyrighted materials to create a commercial product, that you then sell, that may be used as alternative or substitute for the original materials. You’re missing that point and talking about two independent projects competing.

Because the competition is the only source of alleged harm, but people can do that even if they don't copy anything. There isn't actually a property right to the customers. You can lose sales to someone else whether they copied anything or not.

So what that you can loose sales even without crimes being committed? This somehow makes it okay to profit off someone’s work and ignore licenses?

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

#465

Post by danielmarkbruce »

hoppyhoppy2 wrote: post #453
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One can allege all manner of things. The title is clickbait at it's worst. The situation around copyright and AI is stock standard "CEO makes a decision in an area that is clear as mud".

How are you so sure "it's not copyright infringement" if the area is "clear as mud"?

He made the call and there has been some case law since. CEOs often make calls in areas that aren't legally clear (see the oracle v google case regarding java for a good one if you are an engineer). The case gets decided after the fact and the law becomes clear, but it wasn't at the time the decision was made. It's how the world works.

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

#466

Post by jones1618 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #279
Johnny555 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

> 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? The trouble with this analogy is that it proves too much. Suppose you write a book, and so does someone else, but they have better marketing than you and then…

I like your argument, not because it is a good analogy for AI but because it is a good contrast. Copyright isn't a guarantee or magic force field blocking fair competition. It is a permeable buffer against lazy knockoffs and time-boxed so that buffer doesn't choke all future creativity.

People on this thread need to focus on what "derivative" and "fair use" mean and understand both are measured on a somewhat fuzzy spectrum, subject to interpretation.

In a perfectly fair world AIs/MLs could vacuum up all human knowledge, fair and square. (In an ideal world, they would do that adhering to polite opt-in/opt-out agreements with copyright holders. We can dream). Input isn't theft.

On output, two magic genies would stand at the gate, the Derivative Genie and Fair Use Genie and review anything spat out by the AI/ML. If it crossed agreed upon thresholds the Genies would bar the gates and issue a stern warning to prompt again (or maybe the AL/ML would auto-adjust the prompt and try again).

So, if your prompt asked for a 300-word poem about thrash metal mosh pit dancing and it spat out a poem where 85% of it match one of the handful of available mosh pit poems in its database, the Derivative Demon would block the output and raise an alarm.

On the other hand, if you asked for a line by line analysis of a famous mosh pit dancing poem (by name) or maybe asked for a satirical spoof of said poem, the Fair Use Demon would overrule the Derivative Demon and give the output a pass.

That's as fair as this could get, especially if you add one more thing: An Appeals Court (maybe corporate, maybe 3rd party, maybe state run) with a Settlement Pool. If a copyright holder could prove the Genies let pass something they shouldn't, the AL/ML would fix that. If real damage is done, the creator would get a settlement from the pool.

The point is that the Input Genie is out of the bottle. Creators just look foolish trying to squeeze it back in. Better, they should focus on making the output Genies and the Appeals process as effective and fair as possible for everyone.

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

#467

Post by k33n »

sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #459
k33n wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You choose not to believe the clear evidence. Trump's been a known sex pest, liar, and cheat since the 80s. He hasn't changed in the decades since.

No one ever claimed any of that until he ran for President. And you fell for it.

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

#468

Post by dragonwriter »

k33n wrote: post #467
sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You choose not to believe the clear evidence. Trump's been a known sex pest, liar, and cheat since the 80s. He hasn't changed in the decades since.

No one ever claimed any of that until he ran for President. And you fell for it.

That’s not true. People have been saying it since, at least, the 1980s.

Not a lot of people were listening to it until he started to be considered a serious Presidential candidate.

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

#469

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

cestith wrote: post #457
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Metaverse wasn’t a great success either, but do you think the motive wasn’t profit? Do you think Meta is a public benefit corporation?

We could have a conversation about that. Or rather, I could have a conversation about it with someone intelligent, who can actually appreciate nuance and detail. You've got some sort of mental caricature of mustache-twirling billionaires, where everything is "profit".

It's pretty clear that Meta wasn't about profit, given that no amount of "sunk cost" could explain what happened. That had more to do with self-aggrandizement and his belief that he was some sort of digital messiah that would get to usher humanity into another world.

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

#470

Post by protocolture »

legacynl wrote: post #454
protocolture wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wood tends to have an impression of the hammer that hits it. The book isn't in there, the weights are just shaped by what tools were used to form it. When large quantities of source material are replicable by prompting its a bug not a feature.

That's just semantics. The wood would be there without the hammer, the LLM wouldn't be here without the copyrighted works it's based on.

No, thats just semantics.

>The LLM Wouldnt be here without the copyrighted works

Google wouldn't be here if it hadn't scraped every copyrighted website and used them to form a searchable graph of the internet but we only hear complaints about them when they reproduce entire news articles.

Post reply on HN