3 ms·

> We absolutely limit what we can do with vcrs - they have copy protection, and their modern counterparts do too. There are plenty of examples of protection on

by Ukv 3y ago

> We absolutely limit what we can do with vcrs - they have copy protection, and their modern counterparts do too. There are plenty of examples of protection on media trying to protect its own contents, like Macrovision on VHS's, or a website blocking certain user agents. But I think what the author objects to with the photocopier analogy is limits on the tools that could be used for copying - like if you bought a photocopier that refused to photocopy copyrighted images. There are still cases of this (e.g: EURion constellation on banknotes), but it's rarer than the former. > Your memory cant ingest millions of books and then spew them out Nor can an LLM with any reasonable degree of accuracy, really. You'd have more success with Google Books (which has been determined to be Fair Use due to its transformative nature). > For instance you cant memorise a song and then sing it commercially without paying copyright royalties. > You cant copy books with a photoscanner at scale without getting in trouble. I'm pretty sure the author's argument isn't "all uses of memory/photocopiers/VCRs are legal, so all uses of LLMs should be too". They explicitly acknowledge that you can do things with those tools that'd make you legally liable. The argument seems more along the lines of "when memory/photocopiers/VCRs are used for illegal purposes we make the person liable for it, not build anti-user measures into the tool itself, so we should do the same with LLMs". > Are ai folks really desperate that their tech is worthless without theft Calling machine learning theft seems absurd to me, though I'm already against calling piracy theft. In my view there's a huge amount of machine learning which is uncontroversially positive (defect detection, language translation, spam/DDoS filtering, agriculture/weather/logistics modelling, etc.) and not worth disrupting just to let Getty have what they feel entitled to.

wokwokwok 3y ago
Sure, but you have to admit the arguments in this article are really flimsy right? You don’t think it’s a bit ironic to mention “This is the same tired argument we’ve seen with things like BitTorrent”, when the media empires of the world have proved they can, and have, and will indubitably continue to make a) people to write offending software (eg. Winny) and b) people who use that software liable for using it to infringe on their intellectual property. Wanting that not to be true because it would be nice if it wasn’t true is unbelievably trite and superficial as an argument, when in the examples given it’s been proved that people can and will make it so, legally, it is. Whatever you believe regarding freedom and intellectual property, it’s irritating to see a parade of weak arguments about it.
- Ukv 3y ago
  > can, and have, and will indubitably continue to make a) people to write offending software (eg. Winny) Isamu Kaneko, the creator of Winny, was cleared of all charges. > and b) people who use that software liable for using it to infringe on their intellectual property. That the liability fell specifically on the users sharing copyrighted material is what the article argues in favor of and implies is approximately the status quo. (While not relevant for Winny, the author does also make a distinction for narrowly trained model whose only purpose is malfeasance.) > when in the examples given it’s been proved that There will definitely be exceptions, but all the examples so far have aligned with the article's argument.

by Ukv 3y ago

wokwokwok 3y ago

Sure, but you have to admit the arguments in this article are really flimsy right? You don’t think it’s a bit ironic to mention “This is the same tired argument we’ve seen with things like BitTorrent”, when the media empires of the world have proved they can, and have, and will indubitably continue to make a) people to write offending software (eg. Winny) and b) people who use that software liable for using it to infringe on their intellectual property. Wanting that not to be true because it would be nice if it wasn’t true is unbelievably trite and superficial as an argument, when in the examples given it’s been proved that people can and will make it so, legally, it is. Whatever you believe regarding freedom and intellectual property, it’s irritating to see a parade of weak arguments about it.

Ukv 3y ago
> can, and have, and will indubitably continue to make a) people to write offending software (eg. Winny) Isamu Kaneko, the creator of Winny, was cleared of all charges. > and b) people who use that software liable for using it to infringe on their intellectual property. That the liability fell specifically on the users sharing copyrighted material is what the article argues in favor of and implies is approximately the status quo. (While not relevant for Winny, the author does also make a distinction for narrowly trained model whose only purpose is malfeasance.) > when in the examples given it’s been proved that There will definitely be exceptions, but all the examples so far have aligned with the article's argument.