3 ms·

You should read the article, it details a more concerted effort to scrape in bad faith outside of copyrights and terms-of-service.

superkuh 2y ago
I did read the article. At least the 3 paragraphs the web server chose to show to my user agent. I believe my statement is consistent with these 3 paragraphs. There is no information about how accessing public media from a public server and doing some computation on it is illegal under copyright as it is currently. Many cases by authors have already been thrown out re: training of non-book LLM on book contents. Indeed, if we take the US government's established behavior re: computer analysis, it doesn't even count as looking at something (like NSA spy records) unless a human looks at it. Computers can compute however much they want on data. It only matters when humans are shown the otherwise illegally gathered (or copyrighted) data directly. If there are more than 3 paragraphs for your user agent perhaps you can scrape it and post it here as a reply.
- minimaxir 2y ago
  Again, you should read the article. There's an archive link posted if you don't want to hit the subscribewall.
  - cactusplant7374 2y ago
    I read the article and do not agree with your interpretation. However, another comment has laid it out much better than I could: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41163555 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41163555
observationist 2y ago
>> A former Nvidia employee, whom 404 Media granted anonymity to speak about internal Nvidia processes, said that employees were asked to scrape videos from Netflix, YouTube, and other sources Most videos on Youtube are wide open and fair game. The US Supreme Court categorizes the site as "gate up" with no protection of content requiring logins or anything of that nature - if you request the content from the server, the server gives it to you. YouTube has gatekeeping mechanisms in play, allowing sales of content requiring login. Those are bound by ToS. NetFlix is gate down. That means use of the content is subject to jursidictional relevance of terms of service - in various parts of the world, this means different things, but assuming it's in the US, that means violations of the ToS can result in Netflix shutting down an account - anything beyond that would require a crime of some sort to be committed. Training an AI model would seem to be protected fair use. Having copies of streams, and other technicalities are supercilious garbage gotcha laws. Let's disregard these for the moment. They serve to allow the exploitation of individuals. NVidia would be guilty of training an AI system on videos which have been paid for, ostensibly through Netflix's system of revenue distribution based on streams and so forth. I don't see a moral or ethical problem with this. I see a regulatory and legal problem, wherein technology has far outstripped the relevance of laws that are founded in quill and parchment era principles, barely updated to handle publishing of physical media, and are completely unequipped to handle digital data protections and reasonable individual rights. There's nothing bad faith about what NVidia is doing. There are vested interests in demonizing AI, because it threatens a bunch of concentrated wealth that only exists because it can exploit artists at scale, and sell to consumers at grossly overvalued prices. We need a complete overhaul of copyright and intellectual property laws, and the MAFIAA needs to be shut out of the conversation. No more gotchas, no more empowering crappy people to exploit consumers and artists to nobodies benefit but their own, no more of this notion that people don't own the data or devices they pay for. Lots of really shady, unethical games are played to maintain the current copyright regime, and it's not rational or good for anyone. Laws should serve the society in the context of the people living there. They shouldn't be tools of exploitation wielded by the wealthy.
burgrchf 2y ago
[dead]

superkuh 2y ago

I did read the article. At least the 3 paragraphs the web server chose to show to my user agent. I believe my statement is consistent with these 3 paragraphs. There is no information about how accessing public media from a public server and doing some computation on it is illegal under copyright as it is currently. Many cases by authors have already been thrown out re: training of non-book LLM on book contents. Indeed, if we take the US government's established behavior re: computer analysis, it doesn't even count as looking at something (like NSA spy records) unless a human looks at it. Computers can compute however much they want on data. It only matters when humans are shown the otherwise illegally gathered (or copyrighted) data directly. If there are more than 3 paragraphs for your user agent perhaps you can scrape it and post it here as a reply.

minimaxir 2y ago
Again, you should read the article. There's an archive link posted if you don't want to hit the subscribewall.
- cactusplant7374 2y ago
  I read the article and do not agree with your interpretation. However, another comment has laid it out much better than I could: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41163555 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41163555

observationist 2y ago

>> A former Nvidia employee, whom 404 Media granted anonymity to speak about internal Nvidia processes, said that employees were asked to scrape videos from Netflix, YouTube, and other sources Most videos on Youtube are wide open and fair game. The US Supreme Court categorizes the site as "gate up" with no protection of content requiring logins or anything of that nature - if you request the content from the server, the server gives it to you. YouTube has gatekeeping mechanisms in play, allowing sales of content requiring login. Those are bound by ToS. NetFlix is gate down. That means use of the content is subject to jursidictional relevance of terms of service - in various parts of the world, this means different things, but assuming it's in the US, that means violations of the ToS can result in Netflix shutting down an account - anything beyond that would require a crime of some sort to be committed. Training an AI model would seem to be protected fair use. Having copies of streams, and other technicalities are supercilious garbage gotcha laws. Let's disregard these for the moment. They serve to allow the exploitation of individuals. NVidia would be guilty of training an AI system on videos which have been paid for, ostensibly through Netflix's system of revenue distribution based on streams and so forth. I don't see a moral or ethical problem with this. I see a regulatory and legal problem, wherein technology has far outstripped the relevance of laws that are founded in quill and parchment era principles, barely updated to handle publishing of physical media, and are completely unequipped to handle digital data protections and reasonable individual rights. There's nothing bad faith about what NVidia is doing. There are vested interests in demonizing AI, because it threatens a bunch of concentrated wealth that only exists because it can exploit artists at scale, and sell to consumers at grossly overvalued prices. We need a complete overhaul of copyright and intellectual property laws, and the MAFIAA needs to be shut out of the conversation. No more gotchas, no more empowering crappy people to exploit consumers and artists to nobodies benefit but their own, no more of this notion that people don't own the data or devices they pay for. Lots of really shady, unethical games are played to maintain the current copyright regime, and it's not rational or good for anyone. Laws should serve the society in the context of the people living there. They shouldn't be tools of exploitation wielded by the wealthy.

burgrchf 2y ago

[dead]