4 ms·

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 releva

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?
    - O__________O 4y ago
      When it comes to litigation, the parties will and resources to engage an aggressive legal adversary is critical aspect of assessing legal dynamics in a matter. For example, even in cases for which there is no direct legal leverage, party might be exposed to patent, copyright, etc infringement if the other party discovers they have a valid existing claim for which the other party is dependent on and access to it is revocable. Beyond that, it’s unclear to me if there is code that is part of LLaMa that’s not subject to copyright claims, if such code was authored by humans. Someone violating the terms, downloading the code, and reposting it, even without the terms, would be irrelevant to the rights of the party on future use by a party if they notified they’re infringing; otherwise, able copyright notices and software licenses would be meaningless, because you could simple launder stolen property, which is obviously not the case. If you’re positive there no copyrighted materials used in deploying LLaMa, then obviously there’s no copyright claim or breach of contract. To be clear, I agree human author per the US Copyright Office is at present required to claim copyrights. Lastly, my core claim is it’s easy to state something is legal, it’s completely different story to take on legal liabilities related to defending those rights. I for one would have no interest in litigation with Facebook regardless of the legal merits of my position. The OP based on there ignoring the topic, which I raised, nor for that matter is it likely anyone that read this thread is likely to take on the burden of publicly disputing if LLaMa is free from legal claims for commercial use.

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?
  - O__________O 4y ago
    When it comes to litigation, the parties will and resources to engage an aggressive legal adversary is critical aspect of assessing legal dynamics in a matter. For example, even in cases for which there is no direct legal leverage, party might be exposed to patent, copyright, etc infringement if the other party discovers they have a valid existing claim for which the other party is dependent on and access to it is revocable. Beyond that, it’s unclear to me if there is code that is part of LLaMa that’s not subject to copyright claims, if such code was authored by humans. Someone violating the terms, downloading the code, and reposting it, even without the terms, would be irrelevant to the rights of the party on future use by a party if they notified they’re infringing; otherwise, able copyright notices and software licenses would be meaningless, because you could simple launder stolen property, which is obviously not the case. If you’re positive there no copyrighted materials used in deploying LLaMa, then obviously there’s no copyright claim or breach of contract. To be clear, I agree human author per the US Copyright Office is at present required to claim copyrights. Lastly, my core claim is it’s easy to state something is legal, it’s completely different story to take on legal liabilities related to defending those rights. I for one would have no interest in litigation with Facebook regardless of the legal merits of my position. The OP based on there ignoring the topic, which I raised, nor for that matter is it likely anyone that read this thread is likely to take on the burden of publicly disputing if LLaMa is free from legal claims for commercial use.