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

471–480 of 484 posts

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

#471

Post by protocolture »

legacynl wrote: post #455
protocolture wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Yep and so far it looks like the issue with the meta case is they didnt pay for the book. Not that they used it in training data. >in the most charitable interpretation, using them to create derivative works. Yeah in the same way I use a hammer to create a derivati…

> Yep and so far it looks like the issue with the meta case is they didnt pay for the book. Not that they used it in training data. Let's not sane-wash what they did here, they didn't just 'forgot to pay for the books', they deliberately and illegally downloaded and used material that wasn't theirs to use. If you or I did that, we would be jailed or sued into destitution. In a fair world we either should change copyr…

>Let's not sane-wash what they did here, they didn't just 'forgot to pay for the books', they deliberately and illegally downloaded and used material that wasn't theirs to use.

Yes. Forgot is your word.

But lets face it, there wouldn't be a case to answer for if they had paid retail for each book, torn them up and scanned them and trained on that data.

>Zuckerberg needs to go to jail.

I am comfortable with that but would prefer updating copyright.

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

#472

Post by UltraSane »

phyzome wrote: post #463
UltraSane wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On Slashdot it was always a good thing. Remember slashdot?

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

#473

Post by k33n »

dragonwriter wrote: post #468
k33n wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is true. I’m not sure what more I can tell you. Good luck.

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

#474

Post by k33n »

solid_fuel wrote: post #432
k33n wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s hilarious to me that you’re under the impression you speak for a lot of people and that your anger over my personal views is so vitriolic. You should also review the code of conduct for this website and learn to communicate in good faith if you expect to ever be taken seriously. Until then, I hope things get better for you man.

You’re the only one I see here crying about points, like a little child. If you want people to take anything you say seriously, you should learn to think and talk like a serious person. Until then I will give you all the respect you and your positions deserve: none.

Dude, you’re positively seething at someone you don’t know, seemingly convinced that your wild haymakers have any chance of landing.

Check yourself in somewhere or go for a walk. You’re deeply unwell.

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

#475

Post by dragonwriter »

k33n wrote: post #473
dragonwriter wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is true. I’m not sure what more I can tell you. Good luck.

> It is true.

It's literally not. Like, I personally was aware of some of the allegations before he ran for President. And not even the time in 2016, the time he made an effort for the Reform Party nomination in 2000 and bailed early on in the process.

> I’m not sure what more I can tell you.

You can make up whatever fiction you like, the fact is that allegations of sexual and other impropriety against Trump existed (but got far less attention) long before he was a major Presidential candidate, but got a whole lot more attention when he became that.

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

#476

Post by defrost »

k33n wrote: post #473
dragonwriter wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is true. I’m not sure what more I can tell you. Good luck.

Maybe you're just out of touch or didn't live through the 80's.

Trump was made fun of for lying, self promotion and boosting via pseudonyms (eg: "John Barron") since the early 1980s at the very least.

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

#477

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia »

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.

Holy shit, how young are you?

I guess you did not have the experience of seeing his lying sex pest escapades spread across newspaper and tabloid headlines intermittently through the 80s and 90s like a lot of us did.

But sure, no one said aaaaaanything like that about Trump before 2016, no sir!

Ivana Trump accused Donald Trump of rape in 1990 btw.

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

#478

Post by cestith »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #469
cestith wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-aggrand…

Surely the board and shareholders were lead to believe it was for a profit motive. Nobody puts billions of dollars of stock positions into a worse version of Second Life because they think it’s a world changer. They do it to make more money than putting their investments elsewhere. The company said repeatedly that the Metaverse was where trade and business would increasingly happen in the future.

A bad bet doesn’t mean the motive wasn’t to win the bet.

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

#479

Post by whattheheckheck »

Larrikin wrote: post #220
whattheheckheck wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If i could ask for a summary from an llm vs buy a book id go with the summary. That eats into commercial use and the supreme court case sided with Gerald Ford when a newspaper published a small gist of his autobiography because it ate into the sales

Every single Wikipedia article of a book or TV show has this summary. Ford should have lost.

Probably, Educational purposes is strong component of fair use doctrine

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

#480

Post by solid_fuel »

k33n wrote: post #474
solid_fuel wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re the only one I see here crying about points, like a little child. If you want people to take anything you say seriously, you should learn to think and talk like a serious person. Until then I will give you all the respect you and your positions deserve: none.

Dude, you’re positively seething at someone you don’t know, seemingly convinced that your wild haymakers have any chance of landing. Check yourself in somewhere or go for a walk. You’re deeply unwell.

3 days later and you're still crying about it like a little baby. Thanks man, you really made my week. Hilarious.

If you can't handle being called out for your disingenuous behavior, maybe you should try to work on yourself. Go to church, try praying or asking god for guidance. Usually I don't recommend religion but for someone as ignorant as you maybe it would help develop some empathy and a sense of shame.

Post reply on HN