4 ms·

Assuming you’re so sure of your opinion that you are willing to: post a commercial use of LLaMa; provide a public means of making payments; on the related site,

Assuming you’re so sure of your opinion that you are willing to: post a commercial use of LLaMa; provide a public means of making payments; on the related site, provide your legal name, business name, legal address, etc.; and have no issue with users providing Facebook with proof of purchase and link to the purchase page for Facebook to make a purchase themselves, right? Even if there was no legal basis, which I disagree with, since as other have pointed out, contracts breach the limits of copyrights — there’s zero reason Facebook would not be able to file a legal complaint and bring the matter to trial. Once at trial, judges are legally allowed to rule as they please, laws are ultimately irrelevant; yes, that ruling might be over turned on appeal and judges do not like to be overturned, but also possible the ruling would stand and become case law.

huggingmouth 4y ago
Why do you disagree with the premise that there is no legal basis? That's exactly the situation we find ourselves in right now. The fact of the mater is that there is no law to address what you perceive as a problem. Until it exists, people and corporations are free to do as they please. As for legal complaints, there would be no legal basis to sue third parties. I doubt they would go far enough to get a judgment let alone set a legal precident.
- O__________O 4y ago
  You’re clearly unwilling to assume any liability for your opinions of the matter; as such, in my opinion, you should explicitly acknowledge this, as it’s relevant to assessing the merits of your beliefs. Beyond that, in this thread and in the comment you’re replied to, I already established legal basis for Facebook to contest any use of their property for commercial use as it relates to the topic at hand. Do you understand how contract law works? Also pointed out that regardless of the presence of an existing precedent either via legal code or case law, Facebook has the legal right to file a legal complaint, have it ruled on, and judges are free to rule as they see fit. Related comment on the impact of laundering stolen property on legal claims: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35260528 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35260528
  - huggingmouth 4y ago
    I see where your coming from, i really do. I also agree that facebook can sue people right and left. Our main disagreement here is you maintaining that what people are sharing is Facebook's property while i maintain the exact opposite. At least not under current law. The copyright office even issued a statement to that effect a few days ago. Can a judge overrule the copyright office? Sure, though I have no idea on what law it would be based. Can congress pass a new law that gives new rights to facebook? Very likely (as depressing as this answer may be). This however does not change the fact that under current intellectual property laws, facebook does not have any rights to restrict the distribution and use of these weights among third-parties.
    - O__________O 4y ago
      Understand your point, specifically that your claim is that subset of the intellectual property released by Facebook in your opinion is not protected by copyright law and that as such, it’s possible to use LLaMa given per you, none of the property required to use it for commercial use is legally protected property. What you have failed to do though is address that if: there been a breach of contract; laundering the property as a means of separating the current use of the related property from its original terms is legal pretext including if party receives notice of the terms directly from Facebook; and lastly, most importantly, that it is your position that Facebook lacks any legal basis to forbid the commercial use of any of the property it made publicly available in this specific context based on the existing facts of the matter.
      - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
        Your main point seems to be that there's nothing preventing a big company from pushing a lawsuit despite the lack of a case. That is true, but it's also not an argument about the law. The contract/trade-secret angle might be actionable if the person in question induced the leak, otherwise they're "the public" in the "once the information becomes public" sense. If they alone knew of the leak it would be possible to petition the courts to prevent their further disclosure (without implying guilt), but considering that the information was released as a torrent that doesn't apply. Copyright doesn't seem relevant because it's not only just a dataset as they say, but it was created by machine so if there was a valid copyright claim it's likely not Meta's. > specifically that your claim is [...] But, what is your claim? Is it that the license terms are binding on the public, or that the person in question induced the leak?
bsenftner 4y ago
This is how deep wealth is created: the moment something is beyond current law, drive a fully loaded train thru that loop hole, generate unregulated wealth, lawyer up, and write the regulations yourself. I'd say they might now exactly what they are doing.
- O__________O 4y ago
  No one has done anything, nor for that matter is it clear what current law you believe might be overturned; if someone had done something that was in violation of terms related to this matter and Facebook filed a motion, matter would be resolved by the courts. If you’re saying US courts would throw out contract law or laws preventing the laundering of stole property, likely need little more than two sentences and wealth to do so.
  - huggingmouth 4y ago
    Regarding your point that it is Facebook's property, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35261582 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35261582

huggingmouth 4y ago

Why do you disagree with the premise that there is no legal basis? That's exactly the situation we find ourselves in right now. The fact of the mater is that there is no law to address what you perceive as a problem. Until it exists, people and corporations are free to do as they please. As for legal complaints, there would be no legal basis to sue third parties. I doubt they would go far enough to get a judgment let alone set a legal precident.

O__________O 4y ago
You’re clearly unwilling to assume any liability for your opinions of the matter; as such, in my opinion, you should explicitly acknowledge this, as it’s relevant to assessing the merits of your beliefs. Beyond that, in this thread and in the comment you’re replied to, I already established legal basis for Facebook to contest any use of their property for commercial use as it relates to the topic at hand. Do you understand how contract law works? Also pointed out that regardless of the presence of an existing precedent either via legal code or case law, Facebook has the legal right to file a legal complaint, have it ruled on, and judges are free to rule as they see fit. Related comment on the impact of laundering stolen property on legal claims: - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35260528 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35260528
- huggingmouth 4y ago
  I see where your coming from, i really do. I also agree that facebook can sue people right and left. Our main disagreement here is you maintaining that what people are sharing is Facebook's property while i maintain the exact opposite. At least not under current law. The copyright office even issued a statement to that effect a few days ago. Can a judge overrule the copyright office? Sure, though I have no idea on what law it would be based. Can congress pass a new law that gives new rights to facebook? Very likely (as depressing as this answer may be). This however does not change the fact that under current intellectual property laws, facebook does not have any rights to restrict the distribution and use of these weights among third-parties.
  - O__________O 4y ago
    Understand your point, specifically that your claim is that subset of the intellectual property released by Facebook in your opinion is not protected by copyright law and that as such, it’s possible to use LLaMa given per you, none of the property required to use it for commercial use is legally protected property. What you have failed to do though is address that if: there been a breach of contract; laundering the property as a means of separating the current use of the related property from its original terms is legal pretext including if party receives notice of the terms directly from Facebook; and lastly, most importantly, that it is your position that Facebook lacks any legal basis to forbid the commercial use of any of the property it made publicly available in this specific context based on the existing facts of the matter.
    - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
      Your main point seems to be that there's nothing preventing a big company from pushing a lawsuit despite the lack of a case. That is true, but it's also not an argument about the law. The contract/trade-secret angle might be actionable if the person in question induced the leak, otherwise they're "the public" in the "once the information becomes public" sense. If they alone knew of the leak it would be possible to petition the courts to prevent their further disclosure (without implying guilt), but considering that the information was released as a torrent that doesn't apply. Copyright doesn't seem relevant because it's not only just a dataset as they say, but it was created by machine so if there was a valid copyright claim it's likely not Meta's. > specifically that your claim is [...] But, what is your claim? Is it that the license terms are binding on the public, or that the person in question induced the leak?

bsenftner 4y ago

This is how deep wealth is created: the moment something is beyond current law, drive a fully loaded train thru that loop hole, generate unregulated wealth, lawyer up, and write the regulations yourself. I'd say they might now exactly what they are doing.

O__________O 4y ago
No one has done anything, nor for that matter is it clear what current law you believe might be overturned; if someone had done something that was in violation of terms related to this matter and Facebook filed a motion, matter would be resolved by the courts. If you’re saying US courts would throw out contract law or laws preventing the laundering of stole property, likely need little more than two sentences and wealth to do so.
- huggingmouth 4y ago
  Regarding your point that it is Facebook's property, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35261582 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35261582