4 ms·

There's not a lot of sympathy for this view on this site because half of everyone in tech thinks it's their god given right to pirate content because "copying t

by __loam 2y ago

There's not a lot of sympathy for this view on this site because half of everyone in tech thinks it's their god given right to pirate content because "copying the information doesn't destroy the information", and because in the past, the people cracking down on piracy were mostly media conglomerates and not the artists themselves. But I'll try to articulate it anyway. The people who created the data all these models trained on, be they artists, writers, or even programmers, created a lot of, if not most of, the value that is now being derived from these models. Instead of being rewarded for their part, a lot of folks here seem very content with casting those people aside and letting huge corporations take everything, while building a system that is trying to make people creating actual things that have value have a much harder time surviving off their trade. It's very gross to me that people are defending Meta here, and seem to be okay with capital eating all forms of cultural expression while giving nothing back.

Auracle 2y ago
Note: I’m not one of those people that think copyright shouldn’t exist. Authors definitely deserve to get paid for their work. That said, my personal belief is that if the books weren’t legally freely available all that Meta owes would be how much the book costs. Each individual book would be such a small part of the model that it’s barely distinguishable. I’m sure image models have been trained on some of my professionally taken photographs and I don’t care one bit. I’d argue that’s the cost of the books was how much it was worth before AI models, and the authors themselves didn’t create the technology. Therefore the added value of the technology has absolutely nothing to do with them. If book publishers/authors decide to have different pricing in the future to take the tech into account that’s their right.
- aprilthird2021 2y ago
  > That said, my personal belief is that if the books weren’t legally freely available all that Meta owes would be how much the book costs Why isn't stealing and knowing you're stealing penalized more than the cost of the item? If the world worked this way everyone would steal. > Each individual book would be such a small part of the model that it’s barely distinguishable. Needs to be proven (and also impossible to prove how much of the value of the model comes from the classified material)
- keernan 2y ago
  Civil law recognizes the concept of awarding punitive damages against a defendant whose conduct is deemed to have been illegal or otherwise of such an abhorrent nature that punitive damages are warranted to deter such behavior by this defendant as well as serving as a deterrent to others. Knowingly obtaining millions of copyrighted materials that were posted illegally simply to serve your own financial interests, might very well qualify.
unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
I'll help. It's like someone copied all of Facebook's code from a pirated source and stood up a competing website that allows users to avoid "paying" for Facebook's services (in the form here of not being served Facebook ads or offering up private information). Maybe in an extreme case the someone might even occasionally call themselves "Facebook" or use its logos. The problem here is the tech industry sits on throne of riches built by IP law, so it doesn't sit well when suddenly it's "good for thee but not for me." If we're going to cherry pick, how about we walk back to a view that software isn't copyrightable and the copyright term is 34 years?
realusername 2y ago
That's because the current copyright system is so extreme and went so far into removing rights that some people would rather let it burn completely than reform it. Maybe if the copyright system wasn't so extreme, people would have a more balanced view of the system and show more support.
- __loam 2y ago
  I don't think meta is taking some moral stand when they flout the law like this
  - realusername 2y ago
    They don't but it's like "enemies of my enemies are my friends" type of support. I don't think anybody really believe Meta is doing this as a charity.
carlosjobim 2y ago
One thing to note is that a huge proportion of the books in these shadow libraries have authors who are dead since long.

by __loam 2y ago

Auracle 2y ago

Note: I’m not one of those people that think copyright shouldn’t exist. Authors definitely deserve to get paid for their work. That said, my personal belief is that if the books weren’t legally freely available all that Meta owes would be how much the book costs. Each individual book would be such a small part of the model that it’s barely distinguishable. I’m sure image models have been trained on some of my professionally taken photographs and I don’t care one bit. I’d argue that’s the cost of the books was how much it was worth before AI models, and the authors themselves didn’t create the technology. Therefore the added value of the technology has absolutely nothing to do with them. If book publishers/authors decide to have different pricing in the future to take the tech into account that’s their right.

aprilthird2021 2y ago
> That said, my personal belief is that if the books weren’t legally freely available all that Meta owes would be how much the book costs Why isn't stealing and knowing you're stealing penalized more than the cost of the item? If the world worked this way everyone would steal. > Each individual book would be such a small part of the model that it’s barely distinguishable. Needs to be proven (and also impossible to prove how much of the value of the model comes from the classified material)
keernan 2y ago
Civil law recognizes the concept of awarding punitive damages against a defendant whose conduct is deemed to have been illegal or otherwise of such an abhorrent nature that punitive damages are warranted to deter such behavior by this defendant as well as serving as a deterrent to others. Knowingly obtaining millions of copyrighted materials that were posted illegally simply to serve your own financial interests, might very well qualify.

unyttigfjelltol 2y ago

I'll help. It's like someone copied all of Facebook's code from a pirated source and stood up a competing website that allows users to avoid "paying" for Facebook's services (in the form here of not being served Facebook ads or offering up private information). Maybe in an extreme case the someone might even occasionally call themselves "Facebook" or use its logos. The problem here is the tech industry sits on throne of riches built by IP law, so it doesn't sit well when suddenly it's "good for thee but not for me." If we're going to cherry pick, how about we walk back to a view that software isn't copyrightable and the copyright term is 34 years?

realusername 2y ago

That's because the current copyright system is so extreme and went so far into removing rights that some people would rather let it burn completely than reform it. Maybe if the copyright system wasn't so extreme, people would have a more balanced view of the system and show more support.

__loam 2y ago
I don't think meta is taking some moral stand when they flout the law like this
- realusername 2y ago
  They don't but it's like "enemies of my enemies are my friends" type of support. I don't think anybody really believe Meta is doing this as a charity.

carlosjobim 2y ago

One thing to note is that a huge proportion of the books in these shadow libraries have authors who are dead since long.