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

Meta torrented & seeded 81.7 TB dataset containing copyrighted data

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

911–920 of 981 posts

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

#911

Post by palata »

lrvick wrote: post #886
palata wrote: post #883

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but please make a difference between "free", "no-DRM" and "copyright". And tell me how Doctorow sees it when you buy one of his book and start selling copies of it under your name.

Impersonation would be a dick move, and would ruin my reputation. Do not need laws to avoid such things. Obvious social repercussions are enough. Still impersonation sucks, and it happens. Thankfully we can solve this with cryptography without trying to beg the legal system of hundreds of countries to agree on enforcement tactics. I publish 100% of code I write as FOSS. I also sign my commits. If the code shows up la…

> I publish 100% of code I write as FOSS.

This is not public domain.

> and so corporations bound by such silly rules have a difficult time using my work in private codebases without paying me for an alternate license.

So... you benefit from copyright laws.

> to ensure I do not get sued

Why would you get sued by releasing your code as public domain?

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

#912

Post by zelphirkalt »

EMIRELADERO wrote: post #907
zelphirkalt wrote: post #873

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> How does that give you the right to train an LLM on it? Fair use gives me that right, not a contract or license.

Whether that falls under fair use is highly debatable.

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

#913

Post by ericyd »

BriggyDwiggs42 wrote: post #490
ericyd wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just can't get behind the sentiment that the unethical behavior by big companies means I get to access all the content I want for free.

Imo it’s not about you accessing things you want for free. If your family purchased a disc copy of the goonies before you were born and you watched it as a kid, your accessing of that content you wanted for free has no moral bearing. The core question is what impact does your consumption have, and I don’t think that participating in the streaming landscape is making things any better for anyone but their ceos.

The comment I was responding to certainly seemed to be advocating uninhibited free access via torrents, but your point is reasonable. I don't think streaming is a great way to support artists either, though I do think it's better than nothing.

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

#914

Post by EMIRELADERO »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #912
EMIRELADERO wrote: post #907

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How does that give you the right to train an LLM on it? Fair use gives me that right, not a contract or license.

Whether that falls under fair use is highly debatable.

It's going through the courts right now. We'll probably have an answer in a year or two.

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

#915

Post by haswell »

tmnvdb wrote: post #810
mrguyorama wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> quite different from say, the suburbs. My small rural town of 9000 people had multiple taxi services that poorer people relied on to do even their grocery shopping. We didn't need "disruption" Tech bros generalizing a negative experience from NYC or SV to the entire US has been so stupid.

If you didn't need disruption, why did people choose to use the new service?

Couldn’t the same thing be said about Walmart killing small businesses?

The fact that disruption occurred doesn’t necessarily mean that the end result is better.

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

#916

Post by AnthonyMouse »

immibis wrote: post #869
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really that surprising when the cities are passing laws to try to turn Uber back into the taxi cartel by e.g. making it harder for them to use part-time and on-demand contract drivers. The way you get the price down is by reducing friction, increasing flexibility and supply and taking advantage of efficiencies like people willing to do a dozen rides a week during surge pricing without making it a full-time j…

You think that workers having certainty of their work hours is a bad law? What are your work hours?

Forcing them to have certainty? Yeah, that's a bad law that screws over the workers. There are people who are at home doing chores or making stuff for Etsy or doing some other contract work who would like to leave the app open and then accept a fare whenever there is one, or would like to open the app to see if anyone else would pay them for a trip they were going to make themselves anyway, regardless of whether the app can guarantee back to back fares.

Instead, laws like that cause Uber to set their hours and then they can't switch on and off whenever they please and have to work miserable graveyard shifts or split shifts if that's what they're assigned.

Meanwhile there is nothing stopping anyone from taking a job with contractually guaranteed hours if that's what they want. There are plenty of jobs like that, you don't have to mandate all jobs be like that and screw over anyone who wants something different.

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

#917

Post by AnthonyMouse »

ok_dad wrote: post #839
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Getting more comprehensive enforcement of laws in general against well-heeled players is a good thing. Whether something is good independent of what it takes to achieve it is a separate question from whether that's where you should focus your efforts. > We would have a lot less bad law if laws were enforced more evenly, because people would more quickly see their true effects, rather than having to wait until compa…

So I get your argument, but by that logic the only bad laws that get repealed will be those that affect big business, and the laws against individuals without resources will still be in place. I think we all agree that it’s unfair there’s a very large difference in enforcement of law between those with resources and those without, but I think to prevent that we need to figure out how to prevent the capture of the gov…

> So I get your argument, but by that logic the only bad laws that get repealed will be those that affect big business, and the laws against individuals without resources will still be in place.

Quite the opposite.

You have a bad law which is only enforced against the little guy. Right now, when it's not enforced against the big guy, stories are written about it to get people riled up, but that's the wrong target.

Right now, when those laws are enforced against the little guy, people say "well they broke the law". Which is true, because everyone is breaking the law all the time, because there are so many bad laws. So what should be happening is, every time they try to enforce a bad law against the little guy, that should be the thing that gets people ruled up -- even if they're guilty. Because everyone is guilty, because the laws are crazy. So get people worked up about that so that the laws can be changed. Don't accept that people guilty of violating bad laws deserve to be punished. Drag the prosecutors through the mud. Flood the legislators with complaints whenever it happens. Use jury nullification and publicize to everyone that it's their right. Get those laws repealed.

> I think to prevent that we need to figure out how to prevent the capture of the government by those with large resources.

This was supposed to be checks and balances and limited government. As soon as you unchain legislators to micromanage the economy, anyone who captures them can shape the law to their advantage and then become rich and use the money to make sure the government stays captured.

The government needs to be constrained from making laws that inhibit competition.

> It’s almost like we need to ensure no one has much more resources than anyone else (ya know, workers owning the means of production) so there’s a more level field!

The words you're looking for are "antitrust enforcement".

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

#918

Post by AnthonyMouse »

opello wrote: post #802
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #735

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument is that getting rid of the bad laws is better than enforcing them more rigorously. This can be applied to the laws propping up the taxi medallion cartels as well as the ones prohibiting personal drug use. Then anyone (not just Uber) could compete with them and thereby disband the taxi cartels previously using those laws to constrain competition.

I agree that removing bad laws is good. I think by introducing the second, culturally charged topic (1.) taxi cartels, 2.) recreational drugs) you diminish the possible interpretations of your perspective. The other downstream conclusions make sense too, but the linkage is more opaque making it difficult to appreciate. Also hard to acknowledge is--who decides which laws are "bad"? Generally, societal outcomes should…

> who decides which laws are "bad"?

It's better to ask the question in a different way. We know what bad laws are. They're laws that benefit some interest group at the expense of the general public, e.g. by constraining competition or diverting tax dollars to cronies.

So the question is, how do you eliminate bad laws? This isn't a question of what a hypothetical legislature should do if it was full of good faith actors, it's a question of how to structurally align the incentives of a real legislature with the interests of the general public so that they're inhibited from passing bad laws.

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

#919

Post by dopidopHN »

macromagnon wrote: post #538
dingnuts wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if you want to support an artist go to the show and BUY MERCH at the table! almost all of their income comes from that. the importance of buying a T-shirt at the show cannot be overstated and sometimes you get to say hi to your idol, too

A lot of artists are under a 360 deal and they take a cut of everything, so that might not always be true.

By a lot you mean a minority and by artist you mean professional musician in contract with large label, correct ?

I live in New Orleans, that one of the few place where is see artists in the street living from their art. Paying rent by playing music.

None of them have a 360 deal. And their is hundred of them just in New Orleans.

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

#920

Post by drawkward »

abustamam wrote: post #904
drawkward wrote: post #890

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whereas i agree that the current regime of "licensing" is not good, I simultaneously find it incredibly selfish to believe that one has the right to any content one likes. "Own nothing" is bad, but so is "access and share anything." Both positions are too extreme.

I try to buy/rent/legitimately stream all the media I consume. But I've run into issues where I would "buy" a license to a movie, and suddenly I don't have access to a movie. I'm sure it was for some publishing licensing legal reason, but the fact remains that they kept my money I paid for the movie and I don't have what I paid for. I wouldn't say I have a fundamental right to any content, but certainly I have a righ…

I think your position is reasonable!
Post reply on HN