3 ms·

Because there is such a thing as moral rights? Can I start writing books in your name and selling them on Kindle using your reputation with made-up quotes from

by pavlov 3y ago

Because there is such a thing as moral rights? Can I start writing books in your name and selling them on Kindle using your reputation with made-up quotes from your professional associates? Why not? How can you quantify the harm?

jrflowers 3y ago
> Because there is such a thing as moral rights? The inalienable right to protect us from a computer using statistical math to output the word “embiggens” when given a Simpsons prompt is as obvious as free speech and liberty. Edit >Can I start writing books in your name and selling them on Kindle using your reputation with made-up quotes from your professional associates? Why not? How can you quantify the harm? You make a very compelling point here. The books3 torrent has made so much money by doing what you’ve described. Quantifying the harm is easy, simply take all of the money from books3 (the file archive)’s ill-gotten-gains checking account and give it to its victims.
- pavlov 3y ago
  Excellent comparison because the implementation details of free speech are far from obvious and have been constantly tuned and tweaked over the centuries. (“Liberty” isn’t any specific right.) It’s easy to pick an example that you consider benevolent and harmless. But have you considered that authors simply may not want their work included in a Simpsons meme generator? Samuel Beckett dictated the set design for his plays to every last detail. Because of long copyright, you still can’t perform your own version of “En attendant Godot” today. I don’t think that’s necessarily a good thing. But I have to respect Beckett’s obsessive creative vision and that the law doesn’t let me (or Disney) make our own versions of Godot yet. Re: your edit — You wouldn’t have written the books I’m selling on Kindle in your name. So by the same logic that there’s no harm to authors when Meta and Google and OpenAI sell products derived from pirated books, there’s no harm to you when I use your name for my own ventures. Sillysaurusx created a database whose only appeal is that it contains works by famous authors. This is not fundamentally different from me writing a book in your name.
  - hnfong 3y ago
    > But have you considered that authors simply may not want their work included in a Simpsons meme generator? Ironically copyright law seems to explicitly allow this under fair use for parody... I totally understand that authors need to put food on the table, and economic rights are important. What I don't get is why we should worry that some author might be unhappy that their works end up in a meme. It seems to be the last thing we should worry about in the grand scheme of things.
    - jazzyjackson 3y ago
      it's not explicit, it has to be argued in court whether it was a parody or not see: 2 Live Crew's cover of Pretty Woman ending up in the supreme court https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZO.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZO.html
      - hnfong 3y ago
        the law is explicit, the application of such is of course subject to interpretation of the facts
  - jrflowers 3y ago
    >(“Liberty” isn’t any specific right.) > But have you considered that authors simply may not want their work included in a Simpsons meme generator? “Liberty” isn’t a right. What is the word that you would use to describe the specific right to have your possible wishes be enforced as a matter of law? I’m fascinated to learn that rights (which are universal) include the right to stop anyone from doing anything I don’t like. Edit: Wait what > Samuel Beckett dictated the set design for his plays to every last detail. Because of long copyright, you still can’t perform your own version of “En attendant Godot” today. I don’t think that’s necessarily a good thing. But I have to respect Beckett’s obsessive creative vision and that the law doesn’t let me (or Disney) make our own versions of Godot yet. You believe that your inability to perform Godot extends from a moral right? I am assuming you wouldn’t bring up moral rights and then immediately point out that you’re actually talking about your untested interpretation of a law that you don’t actually find to be just.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
hnfong 3y ago
That's shifting the goalposts. They're totally different things. I know the comments I post here are probably going to end up in more than a dozen web scrape databases, and I'm personally fine with that. I'm not fine with somebody impersonate me and steal my identity. Are there any allegations at all that the books3 database misrepresents any works of any authors? Not even the generative models do that -- if it was obvious that the models had a tendency to misattribute authorship of works, they'd have been sued for that (among other things) already. You don't get to respond to "why would anyone focus on the fact that no harm has been caused when we could be talking about theoretical harms that we can’t describe or quantify??" by making up more fictional harms that you have no evidence happened.
- pavlov 3y ago
  > “Are there any allegations at all that the books3 database misrepresents any works of any authors?” It’s a misrepresentation to include these works in a database when the authors didn’t choose to do so. The database itself is a creative work. It’s directly using the reputation of thousands of other authors. Having your work included in another creative work without your approval is textbook infringement.
  - carbotaniuman 3y ago
    > It’s a misrepresentation to include these works in a database when the authors didn’t choose to do so. That's not how any of this works. You can't opt-out from my database of "50 Books that are Overrated", or "50 Books that are Great" no matter how much you claim copyright.
    - pavlov 3y ago
      Are you really including the entire text of the books in your "50 Books" lists?
  - hnfong 3y ago
    There's a difference between "Having your work included in another creative work without your approval", and "writing books in your name and selling them on Kindle using your reputation". I'm surprised that you seem to fail to see the distinction.
follower 3y ago
> Can I start writing books in your name and selling them on Kindle using your reputation Yes: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/08/author-discovers-ai-generated-counterfeit-books-written-in-her-name-on-amazon/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/08/autho...
- pavlov 3y ago
  One fucked-up thing doesn’t justify another. Or do you really think what happened to Jane Friedman (the author in that Ars article) is right? Note how it was Amazon resisting her takedown request. The giant tech corporations love copyright infringement because it gives more power to them, as with the books3 case.
  - follower 3y ago
    > One fucked-up thing doesn’t justify another. Correct. My intent was to acknowledge it was possible to do so (& is being done) not to give permission for it. :) > Or do you really think what happened to Jane Friedman [...] is right? Not at all. > The giant tech corporations love copyright infringement because it gives more power to them [...] I agree. One of the problems I have with the AI training situation is that corporations appear to be able to avoid complying with the onerous copyright regime they themselves created/support but demand individuals still adhere to it. If they're not prepared to limit themselves to training data currently licensable to them or in the public domain maybe they shouldn't have supported copyright term extension/enforcement and/or work to ensure more works enter the public domain earlier.

by pavlov 3y ago

jrflowers 3y ago

> Because there is such a thing as moral rights? The inalienable right to protect us from a computer using statistical math to output the word “embiggens” when given a Simpsons prompt is as obvious as free speech and liberty. Edit >Can I start writing books in your name and selling them on Kindle using your reputation with made-up quotes from your professional associates? Why not? How can you quantify the harm? You make a very compelling point here. The books3 torrent has made so much money by doing what you’ve described. Quantifying the harm is easy, simply take all of the money from books3 (the file archive)’s ill-gotten-gains checking account and give it to its victims.

pavlov 3y ago
Excellent comparison because the implementation details of free speech are far from obvious and have been constantly tuned and tweaked over the centuries. (“Liberty” isn’t any specific right.) It’s easy to pick an example that you consider benevolent and harmless. But have you considered that authors simply may not want their work included in a Simpsons meme generator? Samuel Beckett dictated the set design for his plays to every last detail. Because of long copyright, you still can’t perform your own version of “En attendant Godot” today. I don’t think that’s necessarily a good thing. But I have to respect Beckett’s obsessive creative vision and that the law doesn’t let me (or Disney) make our own versions of Godot yet. Re: your edit — You wouldn’t have written the books I’m selling on Kindle in your name. So by the same logic that there’s no harm to authors when Meta and Google and OpenAI sell products derived from pirated books, there’s no harm to you when I use your name for my own ventures. Sillysaurusx created a database whose only appeal is that it contains works by famous authors. This is not fundamentally different from me writing a book in your name.
- hnfong 3y ago
  > But have you considered that authors simply may not want their work included in a Simpsons meme generator? Ironically copyright law seems to explicitly allow this under fair use for parody... I totally understand that authors need to put food on the table, and economic rights are important. What I don't get is why we should worry that some author might be unhappy that their works end up in a meme. It seems to be the last thing we should worry about in the grand scheme of things.
  - jazzyjackson 3y ago
    it's not explicit, it has to be argued in court whether it was a parody or not see: 2 Live Crew's cover of Pretty Woman ending up in the supreme court https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZO.html https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZO.html
    - hnfong 3y ago
      the law is explicit, the application of such is of course subject to interpretation of the facts
- jrflowers 3y ago
  >(“Liberty” isn’t any specific right.) > But have you considered that authors simply may not want their work included in a Simpsons meme generator? “Liberty” isn’t a right. What is the word that you would use to describe the specific right to have your possible wishes be enforced as a matter of law? I’m fascinated to learn that rights (which are universal) include the right to stop anyone from doing anything I don’t like. Edit: Wait what > Samuel Beckett dictated the set design for his plays to every last detail. Because of long copyright, you still can’t perform your own version of “En attendant Godot” today. I don’t think that’s necessarily a good thing. But I have to respect Beckett’s obsessive creative vision and that the law doesn’t let me (or Disney) make our own versions of Godot yet. You believe that your inability to perform Godot extends from a moral right? I am assuming you wouldn’t bring up moral rights and then immediately point out that you’re actually talking about your untested interpretation of a law that you don’t actually find to be just.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

hnfong 3y ago

That's shifting the goalposts. They're totally different things. I know the comments I post here are probably going to end up in more than a dozen web scrape databases, and I'm personally fine with that. I'm not fine with somebody impersonate me and steal my identity. Are there any allegations at all that the books3 database misrepresents any works of any authors? Not even the generative models do that -- if it was obvious that the models had a tendency to misattribute authorship of works, they'd have been sued for that (among other things) already. You don't get to respond to "why would anyone focus on the fact that no harm has been caused when we could be talking about theoretical harms that we can’t describe or quantify??" by making up more fictional harms that you have no evidence happened.

pavlov 3y ago
> “Are there any allegations at all that the books3 database misrepresents any works of any authors?” It’s a misrepresentation to include these works in a database when the authors didn’t choose to do so. The database itself is a creative work. It’s directly using the reputation of thousands of other authors. Having your work included in another creative work without your approval is textbook infringement.
- carbotaniuman 3y ago
  > It’s a misrepresentation to include these works in a database when the authors didn’t choose to do so. That's not how any of this works. You can't opt-out from my database of "50 Books that are Overrated", or "50 Books that are Great" no matter how much you claim copyright.
  - pavlov 3y ago
    Are you really including the entire text of the books in your "50 Books" lists?
- hnfong 3y ago
  There's a difference between "Having your work included in another creative work without your approval", and "writing books in your name and selling them on Kindle using your reputation". I'm surprised that you seem to fail to see the distinction.

follower 3y ago

> Can I start writing books in your name and selling them on Kindle using your reputation Yes: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/08/author-discovers-ai-generated-counterfeit-books-written-in-her-name-on-amazon/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/08/autho...

pavlov 3y ago
One fucked-up thing doesn’t justify another. Or do you really think what happened to Jane Friedman (the author in that Ars article) is right? Note how it was Amazon resisting her takedown request. The giant tech corporations love copyright infringement because it gives more power to them, as with the books3 case.
- follower 3y ago
  > One fucked-up thing doesn’t justify another. Correct. My intent was to acknowledge it was possible to do so (& is being done) not to give permission for it. :) > Or do you really think what happened to Jane Friedman [...] is right? Not at all. > The giant tech corporations love copyright infringement because it gives more power to them [...] I agree. One of the problems I have with the AI training situation is that corporations appear to be able to avoid complying with the onerous copyright regime they themselves created/support but demand individuals still adhere to it. If they're not prepared to limit themselves to training data currently licensable to them or in the public domain maybe they shouldn't have supported copyright term extension/enforcement and/or work to ensure more works enter the public domain earlier.