3 ms·

Wonder how it plays with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention From my pov this is circumvention, b

Wonder how it plays with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention From my pov this is circumvention, but can we turn the tables and say genai trainers are the circumventors?

blibble 3y ago
that's a very good point macrovision was a DRM technique applied to DVDs it worked by very slightly altering the signal such that humans wouldn't notice, but prevented VHS recorders from making a decent copy macrovision removal devices were ruled as circumvention devices and hence illegal in both the US and EU this poisoning approach is essentially the same idea as macrovision, with pretty similar intent so I don't see why systematically removing it wouldn't count as circumvention
- pixl97 3y ago
  Uh oh, you have a circumvention device right now then.... the print screen button.
  - lawlessone 3y ago
    >Uh oh, you have a circumvention device right now then.... the print screen but A lot of the artists in the DA and other places that are annoyed with their work being used to train AI work by taking a commission to create an image and then share it online for everyone to enjoy. Their objection to it being used to train AI is more nuanced than people think.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      Not really. Their argument is "Hey, I looked at everyones art all my life and used that to build my internal model, but it's time for me to pull up the ladder behind me" Copyright is not about reading your art, it's about the creation of subsequent works that are some arbitrary measure of 'too close' to the work other people already created.
      - hooverd 3y ago
        The people using generative models didn't develop their internal model though?
paulmd 3y ago
In this case what is being circumvented is precisely what is defined by CFAA as a malicious code or information transmitted to cause intentional damage to a protected computer system, so I doubt the courts will be too upset about effectively circumventing the mechanisms of a malicious virus. > 5. (A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer; You can file whatever copyright suit you want, you can’t go damage someone else’s data just because you’re mad. Just like a contractor has to get a lien and not just go smash up their work because they didn’t get paid.

blibble 3y ago

that's a very good point macrovision was a DRM technique applied to DVDs it worked by very slightly altering the signal such that humans wouldn't notice, but prevented VHS recorders from making a decent copy macrovision removal devices were ruled as circumvention devices and hence illegal in both the US and EU this poisoning approach is essentially the same idea as macrovision, with pretty similar intent so I don't see why systematically removing it wouldn't count as circumvention

pixl97 3y ago
Uh oh, you have a circumvention device right now then.... the print screen button.
- lawlessone 3y ago
  >Uh oh, you have a circumvention device right now then.... the print screen but A lot of the artists in the DA and other places that are annoyed with their work being used to train AI work by taking a commission to create an image and then share it online for everyone to enjoy. Their objection to it being used to train AI is more nuanced than people think.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Not really. Their argument is "Hey, I looked at everyones art all my life and used that to build my internal model, but it's time for me to pull up the ladder behind me" Copyright is not about reading your art, it's about the creation of subsequent works that are some arbitrary measure of 'too close' to the work other people already created.
    - hooverd 3y ago
      The people using generative models didn't develop their internal model though?

paulmd 3y ago

In this case what is being circumvented is precisely what is defined by CFAA as a malicious code or information transmitted to cause intentional damage to a protected computer system, so I doubt the courts will be too upset about effectively circumventing the mechanisms of a malicious virus. > 5. (A) knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer; You can file whatever copyright suit you want, you can’t go damage someone else’s data just because you’re mad. Just like a contractor has to get a lien and not just go smash up their work because they didn’t get paid.