4 ms·

That seems like a stretch. I mean if someone just put some source code in your mailbox you don't suddenly get the rights to use it however you want right?

by tensor 3y ago

eqvinox 3y ago
> I mean if someone just put some source code in your mailbox you don't suddenly get the rights to use it however you want right? You're applying way too much logic to a legal problem. If you ask a lawyer or judge about this, their first question will be "what intent was that source code mailed under, and were you the intended recipient?" If someone mails you a bunch of source code by accident, and it's reasonably obvious to you that it was by accident (which it will frequently be, because who the f*ck mails source code around?), you may in fact be required to destroy it. On the other hand if someone mails you the same code and you have reason to believe their intention was to spread it out no strings attached, yeah, you get the rights to use it however you want… except if the sender didn't have the right to do that to begin with… P.S.: "no strings attached" is also something that is impossible in some jurisdictions, since what you're doing might be required to be a contract of some kind, and contracts require bidirectional considerations. But at this point you really need a lawyer to explain the actual situation… P.P.S.: this is like that joke about writing on a brick "by accepting this brick through your window, you indemnify the thrower against all possible charges or damage resulting from this brick" and then chucking the brick through some storefront window.
- tensor 3y ago
  If we ask a lawyer they will probably cite precedence such as Authors Guild vs Google (https://towardsdatascience.com/the-most-important-supreme-court-decision-for-data-science-and-machine-learning-44cfc1c1bcaf https://towardsdatascience.com/the-most-important-supreme-co...) and thus this entire hypothetical interpretation of the legal framework is already not how the legal institutions see it. If the courts are to set new precedent I think it's important to consider all the downstream ramifications, and I think it's a lot more complex and challenging than a lot of people here seem to think. There is a lot more to AI than just generative neural networks. A lot of "boring" technology we all take for granted can be caught up in it.
  - eqvinox 3y ago
    > If we ask a lawyer they will probably cite precedence […] interpretation of the legal framework is already not how the legal institutions see it. Well, now this is an entirely different discussion, and FYI "precedence" is only a thing in half of the world's legal systems. Specifically, the common law (English) half. The other half, civil law (French) based systems, have no concept of "precedence"; verdicts from other courts have absolutely no law-like meaning. For every case and every judge, they are supposed to find the correct, applicable meaning of the laws as written by the legislative. Personally speaking, I find the "precedence" approach taken by English / Common Law incredibly silly — and actively harmful, it intermixes two branches of power (legislative & judicative) that should be 100% separated. Judges' interpretative rulings should not have (almost) the same effect as the legislative passing a law. (Google "Common Law vs Civil Law" for more info.) Anyway the original argument was that you could apply some license-like terms onto spam mails, and for that — no, you very much can't. The situation for AI is, to my knowledge, still very muddy at this point.
    - tensor 3y ago
      I very much disagree that you can't specify license terms on spam. Lawyers certainly seem to think you can, as they always have a huge legal blob at the bottom of their emails about what you can or can't do with their email.
      - eqvinox 3y ago
        > Lawyers certainly seem to think you can, as they always have a huge legal blob at the bottom of their emails The Economist doesn't seem to share your view: https://archive.is/1ahEz https://archive.is/1ahEz (https://www.economist.com/business/2011/04/07/spare-us-the-e-mail-yada-yada https://www.economist.com/business/2011/04/07/spare-us-the-e...) "Spare us the e-mail yada-yada" "Automatic e-mail footers are not just annoying. They are legally useless" Looking at / searching around this with a wider lens, in some cases the footers seem to serve a function in clarifying the intent of the mail (e.g. "this mail does not establish an attorney-client relationship") when the remainder of the mail may be unclear. But that's not a license or contract, that's a clarification of intent. And with this I'll take my leave from this discussion as it no longer feels fruitful. But Thanks for the interesting thought exercise!
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

That seems like a stretch. I mean if someone just put some source code in your mailbox you don't suddenly get the rights to use it however you want right?

by tensor 3y ago

That seems like a stretch. I mean if someone just put some source code in your mailbox you don't suddenly get the rights to use it however you want right?

eqvinox 3y ago

> I mean if someone just put some source code in your mailbox you don't suddenly get the rights to use it however you want right? You're applying way too much logic to a legal problem. If you ask a lawyer or judge about this, their first question will be "what intent was that source code mailed under, and were you the intended recipient?" If someone mails you a bunch of source code by accident, and it's reasonably obvious to you that it was by accident (which it will frequently be, because who the f*ck mails source code around?), you may in fact be required to destroy it. On the other hand if someone mails you the same code and you have reason to believe their intention was to spread it out no strings attached, yeah, you get the rights to use it however you want… except if the sender didn't have the right to do that to begin with… P.S.: "no strings attached" is also something that is impossible in some jurisdictions, since what you're doing might be required to be a contract of some kind, and contracts require bidirectional considerations. But at this point you really need a lawyer to explain the actual situation… P.P.S.: this is like that joke about writing on a brick "by accepting this brick through your window, you indemnify the thrower against all possible charges or damage resulting from this brick" and then chucking the brick through some storefront window.

tensor 3y ago
If we ask a lawyer they will probably cite precedence such as Authors Guild vs Google (https://towardsdatascience.com/the-most-important-supreme-court-decision-for-data-science-and-machine-learning-44cfc1c1bcaf https://towardsdatascience.com/the-most-important-supreme-co...) and thus this entire hypothetical interpretation of the legal framework is already not how the legal institutions see it. If the courts are to set new precedent I think it's important to consider all the downstream ramifications, and I think it's a lot more complex and challenging than a lot of people here seem to think. There is a lot more to AI than just generative neural networks. A lot of "boring" technology we all take for granted can be caught up in it.
- eqvinox 3y ago
  > If we ask a lawyer they will probably cite precedence […] interpretation of the legal framework is already not how the legal institutions see it. Well, now this is an entirely different discussion, and FYI "precedence" is only a thing in half of the world's legal systems. Specifically, the common law (English) half. The other half, civil law (French) based systems, have no concept of "precedence"; verdicts from other courts have absolutely no law-like meaning. For every case and every judge, they are supposed to find the correct, applicable meaning of the laws as written by the legislative. Personally speaking, I find the "precedence" approach taken by English / Common Law incredibly silly — and actively harmful, it intermixes two branches of power (legislative & judicative) that should be 100% separated. Judges' interpretative rulings should not have (almost) the same effect as the legislative passing a law. (Google "Common Law vs Civil Law" for more info.) Anyway the original argument was that you could apply some license-like terms onto spam mails, and for that — no, you very much can't. The situation for AI is, to my knowledge, still very muddy at this point.
  - tensor 3y ago
    I very much disagree that you can't specify license terms on spam. Lawyers certainly seem to think you can, as they always have a huge legal blob at the bottom of their emails about what you can or can't do with their email.
    - eqvinox 3y ago
      > Lawyers certainly seem to think you can, as they always have a huge legal blob at the bottom of their emails The Economist doesn't seem to share your view: https://archive.is/1ahEz https://archive.is/1ahEz (https://www.economist.com/business/2011/04/07/spare-us-the-e-mail-yada-yada https://www.economist.com/business/2011/04/07/spare-us-the-e...) "Spare us the e-mail yada-yada" "Automatic e-mail footers are not just annoying. They are legally useless" Looking at / searching around this with a wider lens, in some cases the footers seem to serve a function in clarifying the intent of the mail (e.g. "this mail does not establish an attorney-client relationship") when the remainder of the mail may be unclear. But that's not a license or contract, that's a clarification of intent. And with this I'll take my leave from this discussion as it no longer feels fruitful. But Thanks for the interesting thought exercise!
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]