5 ms·

Wew! the big problem isnt just with pirate videos... "According to local news reports, the service generated R$4,542,034 ($912,000) in revenue over twelve mont

by pierat 3y ago

Wew! the big problem isnt just with pirate videos... "According to local news reports, the service generated R$4,542,034 ($912,000) in revenue over twelve months" This wasnt some torrent stream for "anyone for free have at!", but a paywall for content. Amongst old pirates, charging money is the big "DONT DO, EVER" flag. And with absolutely no money or goods trading hands, is "cleaner", than groups that gatekeep piracy with money. ------------- At least in the USA, we need some sort of mandatory video reproduction similar to ASCAP/BMI/SESAC. I just count how many times it was played, and send in a royalty check. If that was the case, I could create really cool themed setups, share with friends, take some money, and pay royalties on playback. For music, I *can* do that. But for video? Nooooooope. And because that doesnt exist for video, means we have like what, 50 different streaming (pile of crap) services, and back to cable channel hell.

beeboobaa3 3y ago
Oh no, he almost made a million exploiting others their copyrighted content. Unacceptable! Now, what shall we do about OpenAI stealing immeasurable amounts of copyrighted data? Oh, nothing? Because it's fine to break the law if you're doing it under the guise of a company, but if it's an individual their life should be ruined forever? Makes sense!
- rekoil 3y ago
  The difference is who the stakeholders are. If the stakeholder has lawyers then it's prison sentences, if the stakeholder is millions of randos then it's all cool.
- CuriouslyC 3y ago
  If ChatGPT verbatim reproduces copyright content in a way that isn't defendable as fair use, OpenAI can be sued. Of course, that would be just one instance of copyright violation, which isn't that big of a deal, so in order for the rights holders to make it sting they'd have to prove that a very large number of people were prompting in this very specific way with the intent of piracy. On the flip side, it wouldn't be hard to put guardrails on chatgpt output so that if too large a percentage of an answer is verbatim, it's blocked.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > On the flip side, it wouldn't be hard to put guardrails on chatgpt output so that if too large a percentage of an answer is verbatim, it's blocked. It wouldn't be hard conceptually, but it would be a copyright violation unless OpenAI could establish a novel kind of fair use distinct from the AI training fair use they rely on for ChatGPT not to ve a copyright violation no matter what output it produces, since what it would involve is building a database that is a mechanical cooy of all the copyright-protected works in ChatGPTs training set, and integrating it as part of the commercial ChatGPT product, and consulting it using some kind fof full-text search each generation from ChatGPT to verify that no passage of sufficient length was reproduced verbatim.
    - CuriouslyC 3y ago
      Not necessarily. Youtube has fingerprints of copyright works for this exact purpose, and it works fine.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        Youtube Content ID is based on a specific agreement with the individual content owner that permits the specific use. Which works for Youtube because its for UGC, not content Youtube generates.
  - jrm4 3y ago
    I'm wary of how hard the law is likely to stick to e.g. "verbatim," which is to say, it implies that there is a meaningfully "creative" step that the computer is doing for purposes of escaping "infringement?" Let's say I take a copyrighted picture, make it into a jigsaw puzzle and leave out a few pieces; I can't reproduce the original, but that's still certainly infringement.
    - CuriouslyC 3y ago
      If the correct assembly of the jigsaw puzzle was not hte original picture, but a rearrangement of the original picture with arguable satire/social commentary (such as people's heads being where their crotches should be) then that becomes fair use.
- polski-g 3y ago
  If I read 30 stories in the NYTimes about Nixon and write a paragraph using said knowledge, its not copyright infringement. So why do you think it is when OpenAI writes it? If I look at 1000 photos of apples from iStockPhoto and draw a picture of an apple, its not copyright infringement. So why do you think it is when OpenAI draws it?
  - jpc0 3y ago
    Reasonably sure neither of those would be copyright infringements in any case. Drawings of apples cannot be copyrighted, copyright requires at least some form of originality... And this is the one that might differ based on jurisdiction but writing about a public figure cannot be copyrighted either, specially if the knowledge was made publically available. Now assume I've covered every possible if an maybe because there are a billion of them for every country.
  - beeboobaa3 3y ago
    Before getting into all the legal technicalities: You are human, ChatGPT is not. That gives you rights, and ChatGPT none.
gtroja 3y ago
they're actually providing a service. It is easy to consume pirated content, but have it curated, listed and streamed directly to your tv adds value, so people are willing to pay for it.
squigz 3y ago
I'm a fairly hardcore pirate, but as soon as money starts changing hands, I'm out. You don't need to be a lawyer to see the trouble that's going to bring... My favorite part is the streaming operators who are so very confident they'll never be caught because they have some fancy tech stack they think makes them technically immune to prosecution
barfbagginus 3y ago
The article does not list the organizational's internal operating expenses. I can think of two possibilities: The Good The pirate was a Fully Automated Communist. The service was consuming $75,000 a month in hosting, and turning zero of that into profit. All staffers were unpaid volunteers working to sabotage mass media profits. This is the zero marginal cost model for sabotaging profits. I salute any pirate who uses it. If this was the case then I wish I could volunteer to serve their jail time for them. This person is a hero. The Sad This pirate was drawing a profit and personal income from the revenue stream. Then I still salute their ability to scale a service and meet user needs. But I hope the time they now serve will harden them rather than break them, and awaken them to the cause and need for post-profit piracy models. Perhaps we can send this person a letter, to outreach our support and hopes to them.

by pierat 3y ago

beeboobaa3 3y ago

Oh no, he almost made a million exploiting others their copyrighted content. Unacceptable! Now, what shall we do about OpenAI stealing immeasurable amounts of copyrighted data? Oh, nothing? Because it's fine to break the law if you're doing it under the guise of a company, but if it's an individual their life should be ruined forever? Makes sense!

rekoil 3y ago
The difference is who the stakeholders are. If the stakeholder has lawyers then it's prison sentences, if the stakeholder is millions of randos then it's all cool.
CuriouslyC 3y ago
If ChatGPT verbatim reproduces copyright content in a way that isn't defendable as fair use, OpenAI can be sued. Of course, that would be just one instance of copyright violation, which isn't that big of a deal, so in order for the rights holders to make it sting they'd have to prove that a very large number of people were prompting in this very specific way with the intent of piracy. On the flip side, it wouldn't be hard to put guardrails on chatgpt output so that if too large a percentage of an answer is verbatim, it's blocked.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > On the flip side, it wouldn't be hard to put guardrails on chatgpt output so that if too large a percentage of an answer is verbatim, it's blocked. It wouldn't be hard conceptually, but it would be a copyright violation unless OpenAI could establish a novel kind of fair use distinct from the AI training fair use they rely on for ChatGPT not to ve a copyright violation no matter what output it produces, since what it would involve is building a database that is a mechanical cooy of all the copyright-protected works in ChatGPTs training set, and integrating it as part of the commercial ChatGPT product, and consulting it using some kind fof full-text search each generation from ChatGPT to verify that no passage of sufficient length was reproduced verbatim.
  - CuriouslyC 3y ago
    Not necessarily. Youtube has fingerprints of copyright works for this exact purpose, and it works fine.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      Youtube Content ID is based on a specific agreement with the individual content owner that permits the specific use. Which works for Youtube because its for UGC, not content Youtube generates.
- jrm4 3y ago
  I'm wary of how hard the law is likely to stick to e.g. "verbatim," which is to say, it implies that there is a meaningfully "creative" step that the computer is doing for purposes of escaping "infringement?" Let's say I take a copyrighted picture, make it into a jigsaw puzzle and leave out a few pieces; I can't reproduce the original, but that's still certainly infringement.
  - CuriouslyC 3y ago
    If the correct assembly of the jigsaw puzzle was not hte original picture, but a rearrangement of the original picture with arguable satire/social commentary (such as people's heads being where their crotches should be) then that becomes fair use.
polski-g 3y ago
If I read 30 stories in the NYTimes about Nixon and write a paragraph using said knowledge, its not copyright infringement. So why do you think it is when OpenAI writes it? If I look at 1000 photos of apples from iStockPhoto and draw a picture of an apple, its not copyright infringement. So why do you think it is when OpenAI draws it?
- jpc0 3y ago
  Reasonably sure neither of those would be copyright infringements in any case. Drawings of apples cannot be copyrighted, copyright requires at least some form of originality... And this is the one that might differ based on jurisdiction but writing about a public figure cannot be copyrighted either, specially if the knowledge was made publically available. Now assume I've covered every possible if an maybe because there are a billion of them for every country.
- beeboobaa3 3y ago
  Before getting into all the legal technicalities: You are human, ChatGPT is not. That gives you rights, and ChatGPT none.

gtroja 3y ago

they're actually providing a service. It is easy to consume pirated content, but have it curated, listed and streamed directly to your tv adds value, so people are willing to pay for it.

squigz 3y ago

I'm a fairly hardcore pirate, but as soon as money starts changing hands, I'm out. You don't need to be a lawyer to see the trouble that's going to bring... My favorite part is the streaming operators who are so very confident they'll never be caught because they have some fancy tech stack they think makes them technically immune to prosecution

barfbagginus 3y ago

The article does not list the organizational's internal operating expenses. I can think of two possibilities: The Good The pirate was a Fully Automated Communist. The service was consuming $75,000 a month in hosting, and turning zero of that into profit. All staffers were unpaid volunteers working to sabotage mass media profits. This is the zero marginal cost model for sabotaging profits. I salute any pirate who uses it. If this was the case then I wish I could volunteer to serve their jail time for them. This person is a hero. The Sad This pirate was drawing a profit and personal income from the revenue stream. Then I still salute their ability to scale a service and meet user needs. But I hope the time they now serve will harden them rather than break them, and awaken them to the cause and need for post-profit piracy models. Perhaps we can send this person a letter, to outreach our support and hopes to them.