3 ms·

> "We're trying our best to make it not do that" gets you out of that. Well, if that wouldn't get you out, we wouldn't have Youtube, Google, Dropbox and any ot

by siva7 3y ago

> "We're trying our best to make it not do that" gets you out of that. Well, if that wouldn't get you out, we wouldn't have Youtube, Google, Dropbox and any other site that probably could output copyrighted material. This would be the end of the internet idea.

nkohari 3y ago
The DMCA has specific rules which govern sites that host user-generated content, which in turn gives the hosting site legal protection from copyright claims. At the moment, inference doesn't count as "user-generated" content and would thus (probably) not fall under DMCA rules.
canoebuilder 3y ago
Without Google, YouTube, and Dropbox, copyrighted material would just be where the copyright holder deemed and authorized it to be. (save some amount of piracy of course) It would actually be more in line with the “Internet idea” of a decentralized network, not a massive hub and spoke arrangement. Saying, “Hey, we already have some big corporations where copyright infringement plays some role in their business model, why not add a few more in the form of “Open”AI, and whoever else.” Is not a good argument. The centralized server farms and behemoth corporations are in many ways representative of what the commercial internet has become, but are not a fulfillment of the original “internet idea.”
- siva7 3y ago
  Piracy was at the core of the internet idea from its very inception through hacker culture.
  - canoebuilder 3y ago
    You seem to have misunderstood what I was meaning to convey. I wasn’t even meaning to say much in the way of the virtues or not of piracy, or the legitimacy of copyright in it’s present form. If Google, YouTube, Dropbox didn’t exist you could still share files with your friends. Sharing a file with a friend and him benefiting in some way from that is a different thing entirely than massive centralizing corporations flouting copyright rules to benefit commercially and increase their power. More of the former, less of the latter.
butlike 3y ago
YouTube got big SPECIFICALLY cause they hosted pirated movies. Long before they were bought by Google.
- dougb5 3y ago
  Hold up, Google bought YouTube just a year and a half after YouTube went live. My memory is that the user-produced videos and memes were a way bigger draw than copyrighted material in the early days. That's not to say copyright infringement wasn't a problem by the time Google acquired it, but I remember it being more of a nuisance than the site's raison d'etre. (Source: was at Google then, and also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_YouTube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_YouTube)

by siva7 3y ago

nkohari 3y ago

The DMCA has specific rules which govern sites that host user-generated content, which in turn gives the hosting site legal protection from copyright claims. At the moment, inference doesn't count as "user-generated" content and would thus (probably) not fall under DMCA rules.

canoebuilder 3y ago

Without Google, YouTube, and Dropbox, copyrighted material would just be where the copyright holder deemed and authorized it to be. (save some amount of piracy of course) It would actually be more in line with the “Internet idea” of a decentralized network, not a massive hub and spoke arrangement. Saying, “Hey, we already have some big corporations where copyright infringement plays some role in their business model, why not add a few more in the form of “Open”AI, and whoever else.” Is not a good argument. The centralized server farms and behemoth corporations are in many ways representative of what the commercial internet has become, but are not a fulfillment of the original “internet idea.”

siva7 3y ago
Piracy was at the core of the internet idea from its very inception through hacker culture.
- canoebuilder 3y ago
  You seem to have misunderstood what I was meaning to convey. I wasn’t even meaning to say much in the way of the virtues or not of piracy, or the legitimacy of copyright in it’s present form. If Google, YouTube, Dropbox didn’t exist you could still share files with your friends. Sharing a file with a friend and him benefiting in some way from that is a different thing entirely than massive centralizing corporations flouting copyright rules to benefit commercially and increase their power. More of the former, less of the latter.

butlike 3y ago

YouTube got big SPECIFICALLY cause they hosted pirated movies. Long before they were bought by Google.

dougb5 3y ago
Hold up, Google bought YouTube just a year and a half after YouTube went live. My memory is that the user-produced videos and memes were a way bigger draw than copyrighted material in the early days. That's not to say copyright infringement wasn't a problem by the time Google acquired it, but I remember it being more of a nuisance than the site's raison d'etre. (Source: was at Google then, and also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_YouTube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_YouTube)