3 ms·

"Hey chief, I stole all this data but the scores are great!" I think the entitlement to the work of others I've seen in software engineering generally has been

by __loam 3y ago

"Hey chief, I stole all this data but the scores are great!" I think the entitlement to the work of others I've seen in software engineering generally has been so gross with regards to this technology. Copyright isn't just some antiquated idea from the middle ages, it's how artists and writers eat. They rightly spiked your paper.

jkeisling 3y ago
Just a brief reminder of the last hundred years of copyright: large lobbies like UMG, Disney, or Elsevier have hugely circumscribed the public domain for all but historical purposes (copyright lengths increased from 28 years to *128*). Open access in academic publishing (for public funded research, even!) has been a decades-long fight that is not fully won. The DMCA has created myriad abuses and denied the freedom to control your own hardware, like allowing companies like John Deere to prevent right to repair. Six studios own most movies, a few labels control most music. The cultural heritage of the last hundred years, which should be the collective property of humanity, is locked up in the coffers of a few megacorps: who, by the way, don't much care how well their artists are eating. Yes, there are edge cases, but spare me the sympathy for the poor artist on Fiverr with five images in LAION: this is a fight between tech titans and copyright monopolists, where the little people are always going to be an afterthought. Come out and say the original copyright term of 28 years (well long enough to eat!) should be brought back, condemn the DMCA and the naked abuse of democracy in the Sonny Bono act, and THEN maybe we can get to chiding the lapses of a few researchers just wanting to understand the world better.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ahhfgsado6698 3y ago
  I don't support tech titans or copyright monopolists and mostly just think stuff should enter the public domain earlier as that is what both groups don't want to have happen. And in the case of software I think it ought to be illegal to not release source code into the public domain after a reasonable amount of time, say 25 years. In fact I think it's absolutely crazy we allow large companies to sell infrastructure with software in it and then basically light the source code on fire so that people are forced to buy new versions of their product rather than maintain the source for the old version themselves.
ipaddr 3y ago
Artists who perform earn money by performing not by restricting others from re-viewing a previous performance. Artist who create unique pieces are not worried about re-prints. Writers who connect get followers who will pay for there next word. Artists in the past needed a patron and we have providers today who do that
- __loam 3y ago
  Most of the actual artists I've spoken to really hate this technology.
Der_Einzige 3y ago
Just for the record, the domain I'm working in is educational (like literally afterschool teacher chaperone kind of thing). They have had a long tradition of open sourcing their data going back literally decades in word documents, and before computers, ripping stuff out of books. The dataset I contributed was doing nothing more than taking these word documents and parsing the data out and making it easy for NLP systems to use it. The actual dataset creation/curation is a crowd sourced effort from high school and college students, alongside their coaches that has been ongoing for decades. Besides the clear fair use exemption due to the educational nature of the activity it targets, it's also an activity that a significant amount of lawyers/judges in the legal system participated in. For that reason, I think that there's very little risk of the dataset being considered "actually infringing". If it were litigated, and this dataset were deemed illegal, than the entire activity itself it targets would be shattered. Killing that activity would meaningfully and significantly harm the lawyer pipeline in the USA. But, I can also tell you that I think the majority of people should share their creative things for access to all. I have very little sympathy for artists or writers who are scared of LLMs because LLMs are coming for coders at literally the exact same time, but coders have been open source fanatics ideologically for awhile. It's time for writers and artists to embrace open source. Particularly since so many academic intellectuals have left-wing/socialist sensibilities anyway - it's time for them to practice what they preach.

by __loam 3y ago

jkeisling 3y ago

Just a brief reminder of the last hundred years of copyright: large lobbies like UMG, Disney, or Elsevier have hugely circumscribed the public domain for all but historical purposes (copyright lengths increased from 28 years to *128*). Open access in academic publishing (for public funded research, even!) has been a decades-long fight that is not fully won. The DMCA has created myriad abuses and denied the freedom to control your own hardware, like allowing companies like John Deere to prevent right to repair. Six studios own most movies, a few labels control most music. The cultural heritage of the last hundred years, which should be the collective property of humanity, is locked up in the coffers of a few megacorps: who, by the way, don't much care how well their artists are eating. Yes, there are edge cases, but spare me the sympathy for the poor artist on Fiverr with five images in LAION: this is a fight between tech titans and copyright monopolists, where the little people are always going to be an afterthought. Come out and say the original copyright term of 28 years (well long enough to eat!) should be brought back, condemn the DMCA and the naked abuse of democracy in the Sonny Bono act, and THEN maybe we can get to chiding the lapses of a few researchers just wanting to understand the world better.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ahhfgsado6698 3y ago
I don't support tech titans or copyright monopolists and mostly just think stuff should enter the public domain earlier as that is what both groups don't want to have happen. And in the case of software I think it ought to be illegal to not release source code into the public domain after a reasonable amount of time, say 25 years. In fact I think it's absolutely crazy we allow large companies to sell infrastructure with software in it and then basically light the source code on fire so that people are forced to buy new versions of their product rather than maintain the source for the old version themselves.

ipaddr 3y ago

Artists who perform earn money by performing not by restricting others from re-viewing a previous performance. Artist who create unique pieces are not worried about re-prints. Writers who connect get followers who will pay for there next word. Artists in the past needed a patron and we have providers today who do that

__loam 3y ago
Most of the actual artists I've spoken to really hate this technology.

Der_Einzige 3y ago

Just for the record, the domain I'm working in is educational (like literally afterschool teacher chaperone kind of thing). They have had a long tradition of open sourcing their data going back literally decades in word documents, and before computers, ripping stuff out of books. The dataset I contributed was doing nothing more than taking these word documents and parsing the data out and making it easy for NLP systems to use it. The actual dataset creation/curation is a crowd sourced effort from high school and college students, alongside their coaches that has been ongoing for decades. Besides the clear fair use exemption due to the educational nature of the activity it targets, it's also an activity that a significant amount of lawyers/judges in the legal system participated in. For that reason, I think that there's very little risk of the dataset being considered "actually infringing". If it were litigated, and this dataset were deemed illegal, than the entire activity itself it targets would be shattered. Killing that activity would meaningfully and significantly harm the lawyer pipeline in the USA. But, I can also tell you that I think the majority of people should share their creative things for access to all. I have very little sympathy for artists or writers who are scared of LLMs because LLMs are coming for coders at literally the exact same time, but coders have been open source fanatics ideologically for awhile. It's time for writers and artists to embrace open source. Particularly since so many academic intellectuals have left-wing/socialist sensibilities anyway - it's time for them to practice what they preach.