Live data from Hacker News

Meta torrented & seeded 81.7 TB dataset containing copyrighted data

arstechnica.com

871–880 of 981 posts

Re: Meta torrented & seeded 81.7 TB dataset containing copyrighted data

#871

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. We need leaders with the political will to apply a "financial death penalty" to companies that engage in this kind of brazen behavior. That means all assets seized, the company dissolved, personal assets of executives seized, executives jailed. People running companies should live in mortal fear of ever doing the things that they routinely do today.

Do people even take civics classes anymore? That isn't how any of this works. Political will doesn't allow arbitrary punishments. You would need legislation at very least and that could face issues with the Eighth Amendment. (Which could not be post-facto of course.) At least you're not calling for jailing all the shareholders....

Punishment wouldn't be arbitrary, it would be based on the crimes you committed.

Re: Meta torrented & seeded 81.7 TB dataset containing copyrighted data

#872

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're sick of the double standards. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#United_States_v._... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#Death While Aaron Swartz was bullied to suicide, these corporations will walk free and make billions. I say give every tech CEO the Swartz treatment, then change the law.

Swartz committed suicide because he was mentally ill. He also attempted suicide multiple times in his life while not being "bullied". If he was acting rationally and came to the conclusion that dying was better than spending X years in jail, he would have committed suicide after sentencing, not before any trial had even happened.

You think the jail will give you a way to commit suicide after you're sentenced?

Re: Meta torrented & seeded 81.7 TB dataset containing copyrighted data

#873

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, I assumed, that the clauses regarding the use in training of an LLM are printed inside the book somewhere.

It would still be unenforceable because there's no consideration. There is nothing of value that the license gives me that I wouldn't already have if the contract didn't exist. I can already read the book, merely by having it in front of me.

How does that give you the right to train an LLM on it?

Or are we talking about training an LLM on it and never releasing that LLM to anyone ever? Then I guess it wouldn't matter. But if that LLM is released to anyone, shouldn't the author of the book have a say on it?

Re: Meta torrented & seeded 81.7 TB dataset containing copyrighted data

#874
post #37

Based on the encyclopedic knowledge LLMs have of written works I assume all parties did the same. But I think there is a broader point to make here. Youtube was initially a ghost town (it started as a dating site) and it only got traction once people started uploading copyrighted TV shows to it. Google itself got big by indexing other people's data without compensation. Spotify's music library was also pirated in the…

Doesn't Google have their own internal scanning of books?

Re: Meta torrented & seeded 81.7 TB dataset containing copyrighted data

#875
post #60
post #58

We all like hating big corporations, especially Meta, and people seem to use this as an opportunity to advocate for punishing them. I think it's wiser to advocate for changing our IP laws.

First punish them. Then change the laws.

In many countries, that'd trigger an automatic release/repayment of unjustly sentenced fines.

Re: Meta torrented & seeded 81.7 TB dataset containing copyrighted data

#876
post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, these are not only the laws they allegedly broke. They created a project named Greyball to identify law enforcement and mislead them. They created a kill switch for the event of a government raid to gather evidence. They ordered and then canceled rides on competitor apps. They tracked journalists and politicians... The list goes on and on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Uber

The best thing to ever happen to corpo scum was that social media took over most of the news. Now there’s no trusted journalists to write a big article about this kind of stuff, instead folks just defend the corpo scum’s actions and spread lies for them, while the truth is still putting on its shoes.

It would have worked if we didn’t find out the hard way a lot of social media and alternative news outlets weren’t even scummier.

We need good journalism courses with heavy emphasis on ethics and the importance of journalism to democracy.

We also need a way to punish entertainment that passes as journalism (maybe fewer legal protections) and to incentive actual journalism (and find a decent way to distinguish between the two).

Re: Meta torrented & seeded 81.7 TB dataset containing copyrighted data

#877
post #37

Based on the encyclopedic knowledge LLMs have of written works I assume all parties did the same. But I think there is a broader point to make here. Youtube was initially a ghost town (it started as a dating site) and it only got traction once people started uploading copyrighted TV shows to it. Google itself got big by indexing other people's data without compensation. Spotify's music library was also pirated in the…

" If you plug a laptop into a closet at MIT to download some scientific papers you forfeit your life." This is exactly what I immediately thought while reading the article. It almost feels like the legal system only punishes general public, while most of these guys are above it.

As Venus Theory elaborates the issue on his video [0]:

"This problem will be solved in the favor of the (party) which has the most money to throw into the problem" (paraphrase mine).

So, yeah.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrkAORPiaEA

Re: Meta torrented & seeded 81.7 TB dataset containing copyrighted data

#878

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's as much stealing as piracy is stealing, ie none at all. If you disagree, you and I (along with probably many others in this thread) have a fundamental axiomatic incompatibility that no amount of discussion can resolve.

Stealing is not the right word perhaps, but it is bad, and this should be obvious. Because if you take the limit of these arguments as they approach infinity, it all falls apart. For piracy, take switch games. Okay, pirating Mario isn't stealing. Suppose everyone pirates Mario. Then there's no reason to buy Mario. Then Nintendo files bankruptcy. Then some people go hungry, maybe a few die. Then you don't have a switc…

> Stealing is not the right word perhaps, but it is bad, and this should be obvious.

Many people say things that they don't like "should be obvious"ly bad. If you can't say why, that's almost always because it actually isn't.

Have a look at almost any human rights push for examples.

.

> For piracy, take switch games.

It's a bad metaphor.

With piracy, someone is taking a thing that was on the market for money, and using it without paying for it. They are selling something that belongs to other people. The creator loses potential income.

Here, nobody is actually doing that. The correct metaphor is a library. A creator is going and using content to learn to do other creation, then creating and selling novel things. The original creators aren't out money at all.

Every time this has gone to court, the courts have calmly explained that for this to be theft, first something has to get stolen.

.

> If something is OK if only very, very few people do it

This is okay no matter how many people do it.

The reason that people feel the need to set up these complex explanatory metaphors based on "well under these circumstances" is that they can't give a straight answer what's bad here. Just talk about who actually gets harmed, in clear unambiguous detail.

Watch how easy it is with real crimes.

Murder is bad because someone dies without wanting to.

Burglary is bad because objects someone owns are taken, because someone loses home safety, and because there's a risk of violence

Fraud is bad because someone gets cheated after being lied to.

Then you try that here. AI is bad because some rich people I don't like got a bunch of content together and trained a piece of software to make new content and even though nobody is having anything taken away from them it's theft, and even though nobody's IP is being abused it's copyright infringement, and even though nobody's losing any money or opportunities this is bad somehow and that should be obvious, and ignore the 60 million people who can now be artists because I saw this guy on twitter who yelled a lot

Like. Be serious

This has been through international courts almost 200 times at this point. This has been through American courts more than 70 times, but we're also bound by all the rest thanks to the Berne conventions.

Every. Single. Court. Case. Has. Said. This. Is. Fine. In. Every. Single. Country.

Zero exceptions. On the entire planet for five years and counting, every single court has said "well no, this is explicitly fine."

Matthew Butterick, the lawyer that got a bunch of Hollywood people led by Sarah Silverman to try to sue over this? The judge didn't just throw out his lawsuit. He threatened to end Butterick's career for lying to the celebrities.

That's the position you're taking right now.

We've had these laws in place since the 1700s, thanks to collage. They've been hard ratified in the United States for 150 years thanks to libraries.

.

> Everyone recycling? Good! Everyone reducing their beef consumption? Good! ... everyone pirating...?

This is just silly. "Recycling is good and eating other things is good, but let's try piracy, and by the way, I'm just sort of asserting this, there's nothing to support any of this."

For the record, the courts have been clear: there is no piracy occurring here. Piracy would be if Meta gave you the book collection.

.

> In the context of humanity and pushing this to it's limits, we can't even begin to comprehend the consequences.

That's nice. This same non-statement is used to push back against medicine, gender theory, nuclear power, yadda yadda.

The human race is not going to stop doing things because you choose to declare it incomprehensible.

.

> I'm talking crimes against humanity beyond your wildest dreams.

Yeah, we're actually discussing Midjourney, here.

You can't put a description to any of these crimes against humanity. This is just melodrama.

.

> If you don't know what I'm talking about,

I don't, and neither do you.

"I'm talking really big stuff! If you don't know what it is, you didn't think hard enough."

Yeah, sure. Can you give even one credible example of Midjourney committing, and I quote, "crimes against humanity beyond your wildest dreams?"

Like. You're seriously trying to say that a picture making robot is about to get dragged in front of the Hague?

Sometimes I wonder if anti-AI people even realize how silly they sound to others

Re: Meta torrented & seeded 81.7 TB dataset containing copyrighted data

#879
post #781
post #772

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we need to always have big-budget films and productions? Perhaps we should live smaller, and enjoy local art and low-budget films. Do I really care that Jurassic Park was made? I could read the book and it's more detailed and imaginative anyways, and any lessons to be learned are definitely better when read than when watching a blockbuster CGI film with more effects than message.

"Let's create a world where all TV and movies have the production values of Public Access" is a poor pitch. Even if you don't mind that, you have to understand that, politically, it's a non-starter.

Yea sounds dumb like that I agree.

Re: Meta torrented & seeded 81.7 TB dataset containing copyrighted data

#880
post #37

Based on the encyclopedic knowledge LLMs have of written works I assume all parties did the same. But I think there is a broader point to make here. Youtube was initially a ghost town (it started as a dating site) and it only got traction once people started uploading copyrighted TV shows to it. Google itself got big by indexing other people's data without compensation. Spotify's music library was also pirated in the…

" If you plug a laptop into a closet at MIT to download some scientific papers you forfeit your life." This is exactly what I immediately thought while reading the article. It almost feels like the legal system only punishes general public, while most of these guys are above it.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN