4 ms·

I hope the irony of "the generation of piracy becomes the knights of copyright" in the wake of AI training isn't lost on everyone else. Not saying I didn't pir

I hope the irony of "the generation of piracy becomes the knights of copyright" in the wake of AI training isn't lost on everyone else. Not saying I didn't pirate stuff or wouldn't do it today, or calling out this particular author. Just recognizing how people by and large are simply self-interested while wearing a cloak of morality.

losvedir 2y ago
Is it the same generation? I grew up in the Napster, MIT license, software-patents-are-bad, "information just wants to be free, man" days, and have more or less the same views today, particularly when it comes to AI model training and such. But time moves on, the internet skews younger, and Gen Z is all the rage now, and starting to set talking points. I think when all your music has always been streamed for free or like $8/mo, playing by the rules feels different. But I am curious how many former "intellectual property isn't property" folks there are that are now on the side of "scraping web content to train a model is immoral".
- pseudosavant 2y ago
  I bet the venn diagram for those two overlap a lot. They are both black-and-white perspectives on very complex nuanced topics.
BobbyJo 2y ago
This is what I've been knocking around inside my head. I'm part of the limewire and BitTorrent generation. I remember everyone in highschool and college pirating everything they could, from music to textbooks and professional software. I personally believe large corporations wont be able to control the productive AI market without regulatory capture. Creating models is just too easy once you have the data and the compute. I see all these pushes for regulation as red herrings that will likely result in cementing the current leaders in place rather than protecting the people that created the IP that went into their products.
- smaudet 2y ago
  > I see all these pushes for regulation as red herrings that will likely result in cementing the current leaders in place. The unfortunate truth is that the large corporations were going to do this with or without the legislation - that's a separate largely independently issue. At the core, scale and control over data ultimately make or break these technologies, and large players (hiring the few talents capable of properly utilizing these technologies) are simply better equipped to leverage the markets. The difference being, intent and public commons. At least with the legislation, public commons do not become fair game for corporate plundering, just as the public cannot (legally) plunder the "corporate" data. Without the legislation, the corporate simply own and control all your data, without much explicit work on your part both technically and legally to defend your rights. > I'm part of the limewire and BitTorrent generation Myself as well - however this is where intent comes into play. Bringing data into the "public" commons as quickly and often as possible is most useful for the public, not corporations. Obviously, some of those public are in the employ of the corporate, however generally the intent of said generation was to "pirate, then buy". All studies on the matter showed this was true - free advertising and increased sales (for large scale ventures at least). Smaller vendors had trouble recouping costs, it is true, however attempts were made to build in compensation mechanisms for these cases as well. In both cases, what is common is the intent to most broadly benefit the public, either through legislation (which is intended to serve the public interests) or through broadening the commons (which is intended to serve the public interests). In both cases, the technology employed suffered(suffers) gaping harmful holes that may not be possible to address except by some form of legislation/recompense. The fact that corporations can and will exploit legal frameworks should not however, be a reason to think of all such efforts as "red herrings".
  - BobbyJo 2y ago
    I really appreciate this well thought out reply. It's helped frame a few of my thoughts better. Thank you.

losvedir 2y ago

Is it the same generation? I grew up in the Napster, MIT license, software-patents-are-bad, "information just wants to be free, man" days, and have more or less the same views today, particularly when it comes to AI model training and such. But time moves on, the internet skews younger, and Gen Z is all the rage now, and starting to set talking points. I think when all your music has always been streamed for free or like $8/mo, playing by the rules feels different. But I am curious how many former "intellectual property isn't property" folks there are that are now on the side of "scraping web content to train a model is immoral".

pseudosavant 2y ago
I bet the venn diagram for those two overlap a lot. They are both black-and-white perspectives on very complex nuanced topics.

BobbyJo 2y ago

This is what I've been knocking around inside my head. I'm part of the limewire and BitTorrent generation. I remember everyone in highschool and college pirating everything they could, from music to textbooks and professional software. I personally believe large corporations wont be able to control the productive AI market without regulatory capture. Creating models is just too easy once you have the data and the compute. I see all these pushes for regulation as red herrings that will likely result in cementing the current leaders in place rather than protecting the people that created the IP that went into their products.

smaudet 2y ago
> I see all these pushes for regulation as red herrings that will likely result in cementing the current leaders in place. The unfortunate truth is that the large corporations were going to do this with or without the legislation - that's a separate largely independently issue. At the core, scale and control over data ultimately make or break these technologies, and large players (hiring the few talents capable of properly utilizing these technologies) are simply better equipped to leverage the markets. The difference being, intent and public commons. At least with the legislation, public commons do not become fair game for corporate plundering, just as the public cannot (legally) plunder the "corporate" data. Without the legislation, the corporate simply own and control all your data, without much explicit work on your part both technically and legally to defend your rights. > I'm part of the limewire and BitTorrent generation Myself as well - however this is where intent comes into play. Bringing data into the "public" commons as quickly and often as possible is most useful for the public, not corporations. Obviously, some of those public are in the employ of the corporate, however generally the intent of said generation was to "pirate, then buy". All studies on the matter showed this was true - free advertising and increased sales (for large scale ventures at least). Smaller vendors had trouble recouping costs, it is true, however attempts were made to build in compensation mechanisms for these cases as well. In both cases, what is common is the intent to most broadly benefit the public, either through legislation (which is intended to serve the public interests) or through broadening the commons (which is intended to serve the public interests). In both cases, the technology employed suffered(suffers) gaping harmful holes that may not be possible to address except by some form of legislation/recompense. The fact that corporations can and will exploit legal frameworks should not however, be a reason to think of all such efforts as "red herrings".
- BobbyJo 2y ago
  I really appreciate this well thought out reply. It's helped frame a few of my thoughts better. Thank you.