5 ms·

I think the GP's point was it's different rules for big co vs individuals breaching the same idea.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> GP's point was it's different rules for big co vs individuals breaching the same idea My point is it isn't. Individual copyright infringement is virtually unenforced today. To the extent it was in the last decade, the penalty was a fine. Meanwhile, OpenAI is being sued by the New York Times [1] and various writers [2]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/business/media/new-york-times-open-ai-microsoft-lawsuit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/business/media/new-york-t... [2] https://www.reuters.com/technology/more-writers-sue-openai-copyright-infringement-over-ai-training-2023-09-11/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/more-writers-sue-openai-c...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ricardo81 3y ago
  I don't think you have a point, the original poster was talking about individual indiscretions (20 years ago also) vs wholesale scraping of billions of people's copyrighted work for corporate gain, today. Some lawsuits don't change that fact.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > individual indiscretions vs wholesale scraping of billions of people's copyrighted work...some lawsuits don't change that fact Over the last decade, individual indiscretions have not been punished. Wholesale scraping is being punished. Some lawsuits do challenge the hypothesis that corporates' copyright violations are being treated more leniently than individuals'.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - ricardo81 3y ago
      Why are you introducing this 'last decade' thing. Was the decade before not relevant? The original point was not about lawsuits anyway. Are they American lawsuits you're talking about? You seem to be conflating a whole bunch of things, seems like misdirection.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Why are you introducing this 'last decade' thing. Was the decade before not relevant? I'm arguing that policy preferences around copyright infringement have changed in general. In general, in 1990s, copyright infringement meant "crime, reprehensible, police, prisons, etc." for both individuals and coporations. In general, in the past decade, it's meant none of those things for either individuals or corporations. Yet it's meant fines and lawsuits for corporations with virtually none I can find, in America, aimed at individuals. Also, LLMs were basically invented less than a decade ago [1]. > seems like misdirection "Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like" [2]. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762 https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        tanseydavid 3y ago
        I agree -- it does seem like intentional misdirection.
        ricardo81 3y ago
        Your link to the guidelines doesn't prevent me from implying you're directing away from the point, and nor should it. >I'm arguing that policy preferences around copyright infringement have changed in general. Perhaps they have, and I take on your take on that. In the end you were replying to me and the original poster so respect the spirit of those posts.
- EdwardDiego 3y ago
  And plenty of people are threatened with lawsuits for seeding on an ongoing basis, especially in some markets like Germany where an entire industry stalks public torrents looking for German IPs.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > plenty of people are threatened with lawsuits for seeding on an ongoing basis, especially in some markets like Germany Fair enough, I'm talking about America. To my knowledge, individuals downloading pirated content have not been threatened with lawsuits. And to the degree seeders have been threatened, it's only that--threats. When was the last distributor actually sued?
    - EdwardDiego 3y ago
      I know porn owners go after seeders in the US, I've seen news articles from torrentfreak.com to that extent. But the fact that they're not being sued is a weird delineation to make. They're not being sued because they can't afford to defend so are settling. It's not a case that IP owners aren't enforcing copyright, they're just not escalating to actual lawsuits because they don't need to.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > not being sued because they can't afford to defend so are settling I’m asking for evidence of these settlements. The claim is corporations are being given a free pass relative to how individuals are being treated. I’m not seeing that signal. What I am seeing is Americans becoming more sceptical about intellectual property as a result of the MPAA and RIAA overplaying their hands in the 90s.

> GP's point was it's different rules for big co vs individuals breaching the same idea My point is it isn't. Individual copyright infringement is virtually unenforced today. To the extent it was in the last decade, the penalty was a fine. Meanwhile, OpenAI is being sued by the New York Times [1] and various writers [2]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/business/media/new-york-times-open-ai-microsoft-lawsuit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/business/media/new-york-t... [2] https://www.reuters.com/technology/more-writers-sue-openai-copyright-infringement-over-ai-training-2023-09-11/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/more-writers-sue-openai-c...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ricardo81 3y ago
I don't think you have a point, the original poster was talking about individual indiscretions (20 years ago also) vs wholesale scraping of billions of people's copyrighted work for corporate gain, today. Some lawsuits don't change that fact.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > individual indiscretions vs wholesale scraping of billions of people's copyrighted work...some lawsuits don't change that fact Over the last decade, individual indiscretions have not been punished. Wholesale scraping is being punished. Some lawsuits do challenge the hypothesis that corporates' copyright violations are being treated more leniently than individuals'.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - ricardo81 3y ago
    Why are you introducing this 'last decade' thing. Was the decade before not relevant? The original point was not about lawsuits anyway. Are they American lawsuits you're talking about? You seem to be conflating a whole bunch of things, seems like misdirection.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Why are you introducing this 'last decade' thing. Was the decade before not relevant? I'm arguing that policy preferences around copyright infringement have changed in general. In general, in 1990s, copyright infringement meant "crime, reprehensible, police, prisons, etc." for both individuals and coporations. In general, in the past decade, it's meant none of those things for either individuals or corporations. Yet it's meant fines and lawsuits for corporations with virtually none I can find, in America, aimed at individuals. Also, LLMs were basically invented less than a decade ago [1]. > seems like misdirection "Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like" [2]. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762 https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - tanseydavid 3y ago
        I agree -- it does seem like intentional misdirection.
      - ricardo81 3y ago
        Your link to the guidelines doesn't prevent me from implying you're directing away from the point, and nor should it. >I'm arguing that policy preferences around copyright infringement have changed in general. Perhaps they have, and I take on your take on that. In the end you were replying to me and the original poster so respect the spirit of those posts.
EdwardDiego 3y ago
And plenty of people are threatened with lawsuits for seeding on an ongoing basis, especially in some markets like Germany where an entire industry stalks public torrents looking for German IPs.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > plenty of people are threatened with lawsuits for seeding on an ongoing basis, especially in some markets like Germany Fair enough, I'm talking about America. To my knowledge, individuals downloading pirated content have not been threatened with lawsuits. And to the degree seeders have been threatened, it's only that--threats. When was the last distributor actually sued?
  - EdwardDiego 3y ago
    I know porn owners go after seeders in the US, I've seen news articles from torrentfreak.com to that extent. But the fact that they're not being sued is a weird delineation to make. They're not being sued because they can't afford to defend so are settling. It's not a case that IP owners aren't enforcing copyright, they're just not escalating to actual lawsuits because they don't need to.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > not being sued because they can't afford to defend so are settling I’m asking for evidence of these settlements. The claim is corporations are being given a free pass relative to how individuals are being treated. I’m not seeing that signal. What I am seeing is Americans becoming more sceptical about intellectual property as a result of the MPAA and RIAA overplaying their hands in the 90s.