3 ms·

Gotcha, so then can you give me a date/time limit on when I am allowed to make fun of you, if zero people lose court cases on this? I am more than happy to put

by stale2002 4y ago

Gotcha, so then can you give me a date/time limit on when I am allowed to make fun of you, if zero people lose court cases on this? I am more than happy to put this on my calendar here. I just need an exact date, on when I can come back to your comments, and make fun of you for being completely wrong, when nobody loses any court cases on this topic. Give me a date, and please describe specifically the exact words I am allowed to use to describe someone who would make such a mistake. And if you refuse to give an exact date, I will assume that it is both the dates 6 months, and exactly 1 year from now, and I will check in with you on exactly those dates to see if you will admit that you were wrong (spoilers... You won't!)

lelanthran 4y ago
> Gotcha, so then can you give me a date/time limit on when I am allowed to make fun of you, if zero people lose court cases on this? Well, people have already lost fair-use defenses because they failed on ONE of the four factors. Some cases were lost due to commercialisation, some were lost because too much of the original work was used, some were lost because of monetary or distribution harm to the original author. So, when you say "like this" you mean "commercial mass harvesting of copyright works to produce a new work"? > I just need an exact date, The onus is on the AI owners to prove fair use, and you want a date when that defense will lose? Just how new are you to copyright and law? Who knows when court cases end? We cannot tell in advance when cases (hearings) may actually start (can be up to two years, sometimes), when they will actually end (another two years?). How about this instead - we wait for the first judgement that rules on a fair use defense for training machine models? We set a specific wager, I propose "Fair use is not a significant defense against usage of works to train machine models". That's binary - there's no shades of grey there. I'm betting on that statement being true, you're betting against that statement being true. Loser has to post in one of HN or r/programming a link to the first post in this thread, along with a small and short exercise in humility, admitting, "Yes, I was wrong about this call that I made in a public forum"? It's a friendly wager, if you are willing I'd put it up on my site somewhere (or a google spreadsheet, which is better) so you and I can both update it regularly with suits-in-progress and suits-completed, excluding appeals (otherwise this wager will take multiple decades to settle). Happy? DM (or email me - my HN username at gmail) and we can both save this link to our emails :-)

lelanthran 4y ago

> Gotcha, so then can you give me a date/time limit on when I am allowed to make fun of you, if zero people lose court cases on this? Well, people have already lost fair-use defenses because they failed on ONE of the four factors. Some cases were lost due to commercialisation, some were lost because too much of the original work was used, some were lost because of monetary or distribution harm to the original author. So, when you say "like this" you mean "commercial mass harvesting of copyright works to produce a new work"? > I just need an exact date, The onus is on the AI owners to prove fair use, and you want a date when that defense will lose? Just how new are you to copyright and law? Who knows when court cases end? We cannot tell in advance when cases (hearings) may actually start (can be up to two years, sometimes), when they will actually end (another two years?). How about this instead - we wait for the first judgement that rules on a fair use defense for training machine models? We set a specific wager, I propose "Fair use is not a significant defense against usage of works to train machine models". That's binary - there's no shades of grey there. I'm betting on that statement being true, you're betting against that statement being true. Loser has to post in one of HN or r/programming a link to the first post in this thread, along with a small and short exercise in humility, admitting, "Yes, I was wrong about this call that I made in a public forum"? It's a friendly wager, if you are willing I'd put it up on my site somewhere (or a google spreadsheet, which is better) so you and I can both update it regularly with suits-in-progress and suits-completed, excluding appeals (otherwise this wager will take multiple decades to settle). Happy? DM (or email me - my HN username at gmail) and we can both save this link to our emails :-)