2 ms·

No Fakes – A Dream for Lawyers, a Nightmare for Everyone Else

4 points by hn_acker 2y ago

hn_acker 2y ago
Here are two paragraphs that rang my alarm bells: > The bill proposes a variety of exclusions for news, satire, biopics, criticism, etc. to limit the impact on free expression, but their application is uncertain at best. For example, there’s an exemption for use of a replica for a “bona fide” news broadcast, provided that the replica is “materially relevant” to the subject of the broadcast. Will citizen journalism qualify as “bona fide”? And who decides whether the replica is “materially relevant”? ... > What is worse, NO FAKES offers even fewer safeguards for lawful speech than the DMCA. For example, the DMCA includes a relatively simple counter-notice process that a speaker can use to get their work restored. NO FAKES does not. Instead, NO FAKES puts the burden on the speaker to run to court within 14 days to defend their rights. The powerful have lawyers on retainer who can do that, but most creators, activists, and citizen journalists do not. I've written a bit before [1] about the disproportionately large risk of filing a counter notice in response to a DMCA claim. At the very least the NO FAKES act shouldn't impose a greater burden on the speaker than the DMCA does. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39622375 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39622375
ggm 2y ago
I've always struggled a bit with the "intentionality" behind something. So, when people get shopped out of photos to make them an un-person the intentionality was usually to cast them out. Bad, when it's stalin. Is this bad, when it's a domestic violence victim who has only one photo with their mom, and wants to remove the perpetrator from the image? I think this applies to deepfakes. Parody of news, can be fine. When the parody includes fake footage of real-world events, It can be "zelig" entertainment or it can become the protocols of the elders of zion. The intentionality is stripped from re-use. Textually speaking, I have fallen victim to copypasta. If it wasn't for what otherwise you could call vigilantes (intentionality again..) I wouldn't have known the "this happened to me" story was basically a respin of crap. You can make these things "illegal" but you can't actually stop them being made. So it becomes a hindsight/post-hoc event to deal with them in lawfare.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

4 points by hn_acker 2y ago

Here are two paragraphs that rang my alarm bells: > The bill proposes a variety of exclusions for news, satire, biopics, criticism, etc. to limit the impact on free expression, but their application is uncertain at best. For example, there’s an exemption for use of a replica for a “bona fide” news broadcast, provided that the replica is “materially relevant” to the subject of the broadcast. Will citizen journalism qualify as “bona fide”? And who decides whether the replica is “materially relevant”? ... > What is worse, NO FAKES offers even fewer safeguards for lawful speech than the DMCA. For example, the DMCA includes a relatively simple counter-notice process that a speaker can use to get their work restored. NO FAKES does not. Instead, NO FAKES puts the burden on the speaker to run to court within 14 days to defend their rights. The powerful have lawyers on retainer who can do that, but most creators, activists, and citizen journalists do not. I've written a bit before [1] about the disproportionately large risk of filing a counter notice in response to a DMCA claim. At the very least the NO FAKES act shouldn't impose a greater burden on the speaker than the DMCA does. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39622375 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39622375

ggm 2y ago

I've always struggled a bit with the "intentionality" behind something. So, when people get shopped out of photos to make them an un-person the intentionality was usually to cast them out. Bad, when it's stalin. Is this bad, when it's a domestic violence victim who has only one photo with their mom, and wants to remove the perpetrator from the image? I think this applies to deepfakes. Parody of news, can be fine. When the parody includes fake footage of real-world events, It can be "zelig" entertainment or it can become the protocols of the elders of zion. The intentionality is stripped from re-use. Textually speaking, I have fallen victim to copypasta. If it wasn't for what otherwise you could call vigilantes (intentionality again..) I wouldn't have known the "this happened to me" story was basically a respin of crap. You can make these things "illegal" but you can't actually stop them being made. So it becomes a hindsight/post-hoc event to deal with them in lawfare.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]