3 ms·

The thing is Google, meta and YouTube weren't giant entities when they did this stuff. I think it's good no one cracked down on them for copyright stuff. Now th

by bko 2y ago

The thing is Google, meta and YouTube weren't giant entities when they did this stuff. I think it's good no one cracked down on them for copyright stuff. Now they're developing an LLM that will generate potentially trillions in value to humanity and looks like they're not exactly playing by the rules. But I prefer looser intellectual property rights anyway so Im ok with it

ziddoap 2y ago
>But I prefer looser intellectual property rights anyway so Im ok with it I think more people, potentially anyways, would feel similar to to this if it applied even somewhat equally. Instead, companies can seemingly do whatever they please whereas lawyers will send letters to your home for downloading a single episode of game of thrones.
- ndriscoll 2y ago
  From the article, they took steps to avoid using their IP addresses. Individuals doing the same using a VPN are pretty much immune from any legal issues.
  - ziddoap 2y ago
    This is one small blip in an incredibly long history of companies being able to not care about copyright while individuals must. Workarounds with a VPN are great and all, but they are a band-aid on a systemic problem. (You are not immune, by the way, if your VPN company is subject to a subpoena and isn't one of very few actually no-log services)
    - ndriscoll 2y ago
      IME companies take copyright way more seriously than individuals. e.g. my last 2 jobs have had scanners to ensure we're not accidentally pulling in GPL code to our products, and one of those was a startup. I'd be surprised if corporate security software weren't looking for torrent clients and if you wouldn't get fired for torrenting on corporate machines or networks at most companies. Meanwhile the same people setting those security policies have a 100TB array at home with fully automated pirating setups. They very much don't care personally, but it's a huge business risk. In high school/university in the 00s, everyone casually pirated things. In college people passed around a USB drive with all of the books needed for our degree program. People in the dorms traded music collections with 10s of thousands of songs. Tellingly, Apple advertised that iPods could store 10,000 songs, which approximately zero people could afford to buy legitimately. If anything, the consequences for piracy have gone down since then, but streaming is convenient enough and phone storage/UX is hobbled enough that people pay. In any case, I think the other poster is right that companies flouting copyright law is a good thing. It stops us from pretending that it's helpful for the little guy, making it easier to argue for abolition or vastly reducing the length. That they did it to build an open model is even better: it shows directly the kinds of benefits copyright is taking from us. We should be looking to scan every book out there to build better training sets (and better indexed search into scholastic datasets; at this point all of Anna's Archive only costs a little over $11k in raw storage, which puts it into "affordable as an upper middle class home library" territory. In another few years, it may be affordable to nearly everyone. Better ML models could help here with better compression as well), but copyright law restricts use of works dating back to a time before electrification was widespread. Obviously they're an evil company in general, but llama was an actual good deed from them.
- bko 2y ago
  > Instead, companies can seemingly do whatever they please whereas lawyers will send letters to your home for downloading a single episode of game of thrones. I don't get it. All these companies took copyrighted data when they were tiny grew to be large, they still do that now. Google and OpenAI don't send these letters. They're not the copyright holders. I have no idea what argument you're trying to make. Corporations bad?
  - ziddoap 2y ago
    >Google and OpenAI don't send these letters. Right. I'm not saying they do? >I have no idea what argument you're trying to make. I thought my point (not really an argument) was pretty clear, sorry. "Rules for thee, but not for me" is the point. Where "thee" is individuals and "me" is corporations. (My comment was general commentary, not specific to Meta, Google, OpenAI, LLMs, or the article) Right now "loose restrictions" seems to apply to corporations only. More people might be in favor of looser restrictions if it also applied to individuals, not just corporations. I'm not sure how else to reword my comment more than that. It wasn't really meant to be too deep, and it wasn't intended to be argumentative.
  - asjir 2y ago
    His argument is that it's effectively a legal moat now that protects monopoly. Like we shouldn't accept that you need to break the law to have a chance to compete with them.
ok123456 2y ago
DRM for thee not for me.
lofaszvanitt 2y ago
Well, we'll see how will it generate value and for whom.

by bko 2y ago

ziddoap 2y ago

>But I prefer looser intellectual property rights anyway so Im ok with it I think more people, potentially anyways, would feel similar to to this if it applied even somewhat equally. Instead, companies can seemingly do whatever they please whereas lawyers will send letters to your home for downloading a single episode of game of thrones.

ndriscoll 2y ago
From the article, they took steps to avoid using their IP addresses. Individuals doing the same using a VPN are pretty much immune from any legal issues.
- ziddoap 2y ago
  This is one small blip in an incredibly long history of companies being able to not care about copyright while individuals must. Workarounds with a VPN are great and all, but they are a band-aid on a systemic problem. (You are not immune, by the way, if your VPN company is subject to a subpoena and isn't one of very few actually no-log services)
  - ndriscoll 2y ago
    IME companies take copyright way more seriously than individuals. e.g. my last 2 jobs have had scanners to ensure we're not accidentally pulling in GPL code to our products, and one of those was a startup. I'd be surprised if corporate security software weren't looking for torrent clients and if you wouldn't get fired for torrenting on corporate machines or networks at most companies. Meanwhile the same people setting those security policies have a 100TB array at home with fully automated pirating setups. They very much don't care personally, but it's a huge business risk. In high school/university in the 00s, everyone casually pirated things. In college people passed around a USB drive with all of the books needed for our degree program. People in the dorms traded music collections with 10s of thousands of songs. Tellingly, Apple advertised that iPods could store 10,000 songs, which approximately zero people could afford to buy legitimately. If anything, the consequences for piracy have gone down since then, but streaming is convenient enough and phone storage/UX is hobbled enough that people pay. In any case, I think the other poster is right that companies flouting copyright law is a good thing. It stops us from pretending that it's helpful for the little guy, making it easier to argue for abolition or vastly reducing the length. That they did it to build an open model is even better: it shows directly the kinds of benefits copyright is taking from us. We should be looking to scan every book out there to build better training sets (and better indexed search into scholastic datasets; at this point all of Anna's Archive only costs a little over $11k in raw storage, which puts it into "affordable as an upper middle class home library" territory. In another few years, it may be affordable to nearly everyone. Better ML models could help here with better compression as well), but copyright law restricts use of works dating back to a time before electrification was widespread. Obviously they're an evil company in general, but llama was an actual good deed from them.
bko 2y ago
> Instead, companies can seemingly do whatever they please whereas lawyers will send letters to your home for downloading a single episode of game of thrones. I don't get it. All these companies took copyrighted data when they were tiny grew to be large, they still do that now. Google and OpenAI don't send these letters. They're not the copyright holders. I have no idea what argument you're trying to make. Corporations bad?
- ziddoap 2y ago
  >Google and OpenAI don't send these letters. Right. I'm not saying they do? >I have no idea what argument you're trying to make. I thought my point (not really an argument) was pretty clear, sorry. "Rules for thee, but not for me" is the point. Where "thee" is individuals and "me" is corporations. (My comment was general commentary, not specific to Meta, Google, OpenAI, LLMs, or the article) Right now "loose restrictions" seems to apply to corporations only. More people might be in favor of looser restrictions if it also applied to individuals, not just corporations. I'm not sure how else to reword my comment more than that. It wasn't really meant to be too deep, and it wasn't intended to be argumentative.
- asjir 2y ago
  His argument is that it's effectively a legal moat now that protects monopoly. Like we shouldn't accept that you need to break the law to have a chance to compete with them.

ok123456 2y ago

DRM for thee not for me.

lofaszvanitt 2y ago

Well, we'll see how will it generate value and for whom.