4 ms·

Fair enough. I submit the following well-known examples to support my assertion. What are your counterexamples? Uber/AirBnB facilitating illegal activity but

by mLuby 4y ago

Fair enough. I submit the following well-known examples to support my assertion. What are your counterexamples? Uber/AirBnB facilitating illegal activity but growing large enough to force legalization. Facebook et al providing data and conduits to influence elections.

williamcotton 4y ago
Oh boy... Well here's some basics about the law. Broadly speaking, a trial requires a plaintiff who makes a claim of a wrong allegedly committed by a defendant. In the United States, which at the federal and state level (spare Louisiana) follows English common law jurisprudence, there are two kinds of wrongs: Private and public. Broadly speaking, public wrongs are committed against "the community", while private wrongs are committed against an individual. So if we're talking about say, Stable Diffusion, we can reference the actual claim of the private wrong being made and the details of the case. The plaintiffs are some artists. The defendants are some companies who created a ML model. The claim is that they were wronged for copyright infringement, DMCA violations, common law and statuary rights to publicity, etc. For copyright infringement, the defense will attempt to show that SD is fair use and their reference Sony v Universal, Google v Authors Guild, Baker v Selden, ABC v Aerokiller. The plaintiffs will argue it's not fair use while also attempting to show the damages to the marketplace for competing works. There will be strategies on both sides for the other claimed wrongs. I don't see anything that the legal system can't place mainly into existing frameworks while also adding to the existing corpus of case law and helping to further define what is and isn't considered a wrong for future courts when it comes to training ML models on published works. So I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say about Uber, AirBnB or Facebook because those just sound like a lot of political opinions as they are not legally framed. If you and other people want representatives to write new laws about social media companies, ride sharing services or short-term rentals, well go right ahead! IMO, no new laws are necessary for the two "high-profile" (hah!) cases against Stable Diffusion and Copilot. I'm also pretty sure that the defendants will successfully prove to the courts that these tools are indeed fair use. Politically, I would want my representatives to argue against legislation that would change such an interpretation!
- mLuby 4y ago
  I agree with your assessment of how it'll go down. However that verdict will in effect be legalizing a categorically new thing. Software is often built to perform well for expected inputs, yet when given unexpected inputs it may produce bizarre results that when passed to other software create difficult-to-anticipate cascades of failures. The legal system is capable of the same.

by mLuby 4y ago

williamcotton 4y ago

Oh boy... Well here's some basics about the law. Broadly speaking, a trial requires a plaintiff who makes a claim of a wrong allegedly committed by a defendant. In the United States, which at the federal and state level (spare Louisiana) follows English common law jurisprudence, there are two kinds of wrongs: Private and public. Broadly speaking, public wrongs are committed against "the community", while private wrongs are committed against an individual. So if we're talking about say, Stable Diffusion, we can reference the actual claim of the private wrong being made and the details of the case. The plaintiffs are some artists. The defendants are some companies who created a ML model. The claim is that they were wronged for copyright infringement, DMCA violations, common law and statuary rights to publicity, etc. For copyright infringement, the defense will attempt to show that SD is fair use and their reference Sony v Universal, Google v Authors Guild, Baker v Selden, ABC v Aerokiller. The plaintiffs will argue it's not fair use while also attempting to show the damages to the marketplace for competing works. There will be strategies on both sides for the other claimed wrongs. I don't see anything that the legal system can't place mainly into existing frameworks while also adding to the existing corpus of case law and helping to further define what is and isn't considered a wrong for future courts when it comes to training ML models on published works. So I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say about Uber, AirBnB or Facebook because those just sound like a lot of political opinions as they are not legally framed. If you and other people want representatives to write new laws about social media companies, ride sharing services or short-term rentals, well go right ahead! IMO, no new laws are necessary for the two "high-profile" (hah!) cases against Stable Diffusion and Copilot. I'm also pretty sure that the defendants will successfully prove to the courts that these tools are indeed fair use. Politically, I would want my representatives to argue against legislation that would change such an interpretation!

mLuby 4y ago
I agree with your assessment of how it'll go down. However that verdict will in effect be legalizing a categorically new thing. Software is often built to perform well for expected inputs, yet when given unexpected inputs it may produce bizarre results that when passed to other software create difficult-to-anticipate cascades of failures. The legal system is capable of the same.