Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 146 posts

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#51

Post by c2h5oh »

gruez wrote: post #9
int32_64 wrote: post #6

Aaron Swartz was facing up to 35 years for wire fraud and hacking for swiping some JSTOR documents, and the DOJ has done nothing against the AI companies and their IP violating antics.

>and the DOJ has done nothing against the AI companies and their IP violating antics. For good reason. Courts have so far ruled AI training is fair use, and it doesn't look likely to be overturned by the supreme court. Theres also the matter of some labs pirating books to get training data, which is illegal (they lost in civil court), but it's unclear whether that can be criminally prosecuted.

Courts have also ruled that sharing in P2P network is enough to get hit with 150k in statutory damages per shared work.

AI companies did quite a bit of uploading while e.g. getting Anna's archive over BitTorrent.

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#52

Post by eastbound »

c2h5oh wrote: post #51
gruez wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and the DOJ has done nothing against the AI companies and their IP violating antics. For good reason. Courts have so far ruled AI training is fair use, and it doesn't look likely to be overturned by the supreme court. Theres also the matter of some labs pirating books to get training data, which is illegal (they lost in civil court), but it's unclear whether that can be criminally prosecuted.

Courts have also ruled that sharing in P2P network is enough to get hit with 150k in statutory damages per shared work. AI companies did quite a bit of uploading while e.g. getting Anna's archive over BitTorrent.

It's transformative. Not aimed at exact reproduction, so not in the scope of copyright law.

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#53

Post by lobf »

eastbound wrote: post #52
c2h5oh wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Courts have also ruled that sharing in P2P network is enough to get hit with 150k in statutory damages per shared work. AI companies did quite a bit of uploading while e.g. getting Anna's archive over BitTorrent.

It's transformative . Not aimed at exact reproduction, so not in the scope of copyright law.

I think you misread. There is nothing transformative about bittorrent automatically sharing parts of a file you're downloading with your peers.

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#54

Post by fakedang »

seemaze wrote: post #22
lenerdenator wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bear with me here: we could do all of them. You can get these companies under control. You just have to, y'know, try.

we could do all of them, but they all seem to be up to date on their tithe. AI has a somewhat mixed record of tribute.

Which is why High IQ President specifically responded to Amodei.

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#55

Post by tareqak »

eastbound wrote: post #52
c2h5oh wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Courts have also ruled that sharing in P2P network is enough to get hit with 150k in statutory damages per shared work. AI companies did quite a bit of uploading while e.g. getting Anna's archive over BitTorrent.

It's transformative . Not aimed at exact reproduction, so not in the scope of copyright law.

They participated in uploading the files as part of the downloading the torrent from other peers. Their use of the BitTorrent protocol to acquire these files would not have been transformative.

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#56

Post by anonymous_user9 »

WalterBright wrote: post #27
tzs wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of those things you list that she has never done help in any meaningful way with understanding antitrust law.

Running a business is a rude awakening for anyone who hasn't done it. Like a ballet critic who has never taken a ballet class. Or a commander who has never been shot at. Or a sailor who has never been at sea. Mayors Katie Wilson and Mandami have never run a business, or worked for a business, and it shows. How can one regulate a business without ever being in the trenches?

> Mandami have never run a business, or worked for a business, and it shows.

In record-high approval ratings, multiple reforms supported by small businesses, and fast progress on many huge initiatives?

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#57

Post by stale2002 »

NewJazz wrote: post #48
xnx wrote: post #8

AI is a very competitive market where consumers are getting the product for much less than it costs. This does not seem like an area where the government needs to butt in. Attention would be better spent on long list of other poorly behaved companies: cable ISP monopolies, health insurance companies, home insurance companies, etc.

Why wouldn't the government have incentive to intervene to end a market inefficiency like the one you described?

Because the goal of government policy is to help consumers, thats why.

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#58

Post by Madmallard »

gruez wrote: post #9
int32_64 wrote: post #6

Aaron Swartz was facing up to 35 years for wire fraud and hacking for swiping some JSTOR documents, and the DOJ has done nothing against the AI companies and their IP violating antics.

>and the DOJ has done nothing against the AI companies and their IP violating antics. For good reason. Courts have so far ruled AI training is fair use, and it doesn't look likely to be overturned by the supreme court. Theres also the matter of some labs pirating books to get training data, which is illegal (they lost in civil court), but it's unclear whether that can be criminally prosecuted.

It wouldn't be ruled fair use in a sane society without bribery and lobbying with competent technologically savvy law interpreters.

Re: Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

#59

Post by snickerbockers »

int32_64 wrote: post #6

Aaron Swartz was facing up to 35 years for wire fraud and hacking for swiping some JSTOR documents, and the DOJ has done nothing against the AI companies and their IP violating antics.

Because that's not what IP law is for. IP law was always corporate rent-seeking. None of those arguments about fairly compensating people for their creations or preserving the profit motive were ever being made in good faith. The point was always to force you to pay for something that would be free under natural laws. And I do mean you specifically, because the act of copying information freely was always going to be preserved for them.
Post reply on HN