10 ms·
When Joe Rando plays a song from 1640 on a violin he gets a copyright claim on Youtube. When Jane Rando uses devtools to check a website source code she gets su
by tpxl 4y ago
When Joe Rando plays a song from 1640 on a violin he gets a copyright claim on Youtube. When Jane Rando uses devtools to check a website source code she gets sued.
When Microsoft steals all code on their platform and sells it, they get lauded. When "Open" AI steals thousands of copyrighted images and sells them, they get lauded.
I am skeptical of imaginary property myself, but fuck this one set of rules for the poor, another set of rules for the masses.
- gw99 4y agoIf this is the new status quo then I suggest we find out how to fuck up the corpus as best as possible.
- a4isms 4y ago> one set of rules for the poor, another set of rules for the masses. Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. —Composer Frank Wilhoit[1] [1]: https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288 https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progre...
- sbuttgereit 4y agoThanks for posting the link to the quote. Having said that, I don't think it's possible to quote that bit and get an understanding of the idea being conveyed without it's opening context. Indeed, it's likely to cause a false idea of what's being conveyed. From earlier in the same post: "There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc. There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation."
- a4isms 4y agoI agree that adds considerable depth to the value of the quote, and connects it to the conversation he appeared to be having, which is about the first line you've quoted: There is no such thing as being a Liberal or Progressive, there is only being a Conservative or anti-Conservative, and while there is much nuänce and policy to debate about that, it boils down to deciding whether you actually support or abhor the idea of "the law" (which is a much broader concept than just the legal system) existing to enforce or erase the distinction between in-groups and out-groups. But that's just my read on it. Getting back to intellectual property, it has become a bitter joke on artists and creatives, who are held up as the beneficiaries of intellectual property laws in theory, but in practice are just as much of an out-group as everyone else. We are bound by the law—see patent trolls, for example—but not protected by it unless we have pockets deep enough to sue Disney for not paying us.
- thrown_22 4y ago[flagged]
- insanitybit 4y ago> Joe Rando plays a song from 1640 on a violin he gets a copyright claim on Youtube That can't possibly be a valid claim, right? AFAIK copyright is "gone" after the original author dies + ~70 years. Before fairly recently it was even shorter. Something from 1640 surely can't be claimed under copyright protection. There are much more recent changes where that might not be the case, but 1640? > When Jane Rando uses devtools to check a website source code she gets sued. Again, that doesn't sound like a valid suit. Surely she would win? In the few cases I've heard of where suits like this are brought against someone they've easily won them.
- Rodeoclash 4y agoThis isn't a legal copyright claim, it's a "YouTube" copyright claim which is entirely owned and enforced by YouTube.
- insanitybit 4y agoOK but then we're just talking about content moderation, which seems like a separate issue. I think using "YouTube copyright claim" as a proxy for "legal copyright claim" is more to the parent's point, especially since that's how YouTube purports the claim to work. Otherwise it feels irrelevant.
- cipherboy 4y agoCopyright claims are a form of content moderation, by preventing reuse of content that others own. But it can still be weaponized to prevent legitimate resubmissions of parallel works, that can potentially deplatform legitimate users, depending on the reviewer and the clarity of the rebuttal.
- lupire 4y agoYouTube does this moderation in order to avoid legal pressure from copyright holders, as in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v._YouTube,_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viacom_International_Inc._v.....
- 4y ago
- stickfigure 4y agoYeah, inequality sucks. So how about we focus on making the world better for everyone instead of making the world equally shitty for everyone?
- imwillofficial 4y agoThis makes no sense. Absolutely nobody is arguing to make the world shittier
- zopa 4y agoBecause we’re not the ones with the power. People with limited power pick the fights they might win, not the fights that maximize total welfare for everyone including large copyright holders. There’s no moral obligation to be a philosopher king unless you’re actually on a throne.
- rtkwe 4y agoI think copilot is a clearer copyright violation than any of the stable diffusion projects though because code has a much narrower band of expression than images. It's really easy to look at the output of CoPilot and match it back to the original source and say these are the same. With stable diffusion it's much closer to someone remixing and aping the images than it is reproducing originals. I haven't been following super closely but I don't know of any claims or examples where input images were recreated to a significant degree by stable diffusion.
- makeitdouble 4y agoI think the is exacty the gap the gp is mentionning: to a trained artist it is clear as water that the original image has been lifted wholesale, even if for instance the colors are adjusted here and there. You put it as a remix, but remixes are credited and expressed as such.
- jzb 4y agoI haven’t seen any side by sides that seem like a lift. Any examples? I don’t see Midjourney (et al) as remixes, myself. More like “inspired by.”
- omnimus 4y agoIts clear where the knowhow was lifted from it doesnt matter that if the final image is somewhat unique (almost every image is).
- matkoniecz 4y agostyle is not copyrightable under current rules
- omnimus 4y agoBut it means the models were trained on images that are under copyright. In fact many of these models were trained exclusively on such images without any permission. For example Midjourney is clearly trained on everything on artstation.com where almost all images have commercial purpose / licenses.
- e40 4y agoPreach. So incredibly annoyed when I tried to send a video of my son playing Beethoven to his grandparents and it was taken down due to a copyright violation.
- c7b 4y ago> When Joe Rando plays a song from 1640 on a violin he gets a copyright claim on Youtube. When Jane Rando uses devtools to check a website source code she gets sued. Do you have any evidence for those claims, or anything resembling those examples? Music copyright has long expired for classical music, and big shots are definitely not exempt from where it applies. Just look at how much heat Ed Sheeran, one of the biggest contemporary pop stars, got for "stealing" a phrase that was literally just chanting "Oh-I" a few times (just to be clear, I am familiar with the case and find it infuriating that this petty rent-seeking attempt went to trial at all, even if Sheeran ended up being completely cleared, but to great personal distress as he said afterwards). And who ever got sued for using dev tools? Is there even a way to find that out?
- codefreakxff 4y agoThere have been a number of stories about musicians being copyright claims. Here is the first result on Google https://www.radioclash.com/archives/2021/05/02/youtuber-gets-copyright-claim-for-playing-beethoven/ https://www.radioclash.com/archives/2021/05/02/youtuber-gets... For being sued for looking at source here is the first result on Google https://www.wired.com/story/missouri-threatens-sue-reporter-state-website-security-flaw/ https://www.wired.com/story/missouri-threatens-sue-reporter-...
- c7b 4y agoOk - it is a true shame that the YouTube copyright claim system is so broken as to enable those shady practices, and that politicians still haven't upped their knowledge of the internet beyond a 'series of tubes'. But surely the answer should be to fix the broken YT system and to educate politicians to abstain from baseless threats, not to make AI researchers pay for it?
- frob 4y agoJust to be clear, because it's in the title, the reporter was threatened with a lawsuit for looking at source code. I cannot find anyone acually sued for it. BTW, here's an article saying said reporter wasn't sued: https://www.theregister.com/AMP/2022/02/15/missouri_html_hacking/ https://www.theregister.com/AMP/2022/02/15/missouri_html_hac... Anyone with a mouth can run it and threaten a lawsuit. If fact, I threaten to sue you for misinformation right now unless you correct your post. Fat lot of good my threat will do because no judge in their right mind would entertain said lawsuit because it's baseless.
- cyanydeez 4y agoBasically, copyright is for people with copyright lawyers
- kodah 4y agoThat's not even a joke. One of the premises of a copyright is that you defend your intellectual property or lose it. If the system were more equitable then it would defend your copyright.
- eropple 4y agoThis is an inaccurate description of copyright, at least in the United States. Trademarks require active defense to avoid genericization. Copyright may be asserted at the holder's discretion.
- heavyset_go 4y agoYou're thinking of trademarks.
- kodah 4y agoAh! You're right.
- patmorgan23 4y agoYour point about losing copyright is incorrect. But copyright absolutely was designed with corporations in mind not small individual creators. It was designed around TV,Movies, and print publishers, not around YouTube and Patreon.
- lo_zamoyski 4y agoThe poor are the masses, or at least part of the masses.
- foobarbecue 4y agoYeah, presumably this was an editing error and he meant "the corporations."
- foobarbecue 4y ago> one set of rules for the poor, another set of rules for the masses Presumably by "the masses" you meant "the large corporations"? Usually, "the masses" means "the common people" ... i.e. not much different from "the poor." If you meant corporations, I'm 100% behind this comment.
- debugnik 4y agoI think they mixed "for the rich … for the masses" and "for the poor … for corporations" while writing. But it's clear they meant contrasting terms.
- foobarbecue 4y agoI'm not even a good cellist and YouTube has put copyright claims on the crappy practice videos I have of me playing Saint-Saëns.
- QuantumSeed 4y agoI suspect a video of you playing literally anything on the cello--even an improvised song or a random motif--is likely to get reported as a copyright violation when uploaded to YouTube.
- foobarbecue 4y agoInteresting theory. I'll have to test that. Oh, actually I remember now -- I think the copyright complaint specifically said what recording they thought I was infringing, and it was the correct piece.
- Aeolun 4y agoDiffusion of responsibility. When Joe rando plays his song, it’s easy to see the offender and do something about it. When it’s a faceless mass of 100k employees…? Not so much.
- moron4hire 4y agoThe "Joe Rando" example is of playing a song that predates the copyright system.
- znpy 4y agoWell copyright and intellectual property are made-up concepts anyway. It’s only logical that people twist and bend the rules. Anyway, this kind of bs will go on until people start bringing companies to court over this. I still don’t get why don’t lawyers start offering their services for a cut of the damages… there probably is good money to be made by suing companies that put copyright-infringing ai in production.
- version_five 4y agoYou have four examples of using replicable stuff that has been shared publicly, and you call two of them stealing. All I can take away from this is the absurdity of intellectual property laws in general. I agree with the GP, if people are sharing stuff, it's fair game. If you don't want people using stuff you made, keep it to yourself. Pretending we can apply controls to how freely available info is used is silly anyway
- aejnsn 4y agoWowwww. This is exactly what I was thinking, but I couldn’t put it into such a terse simple example. +1