6 ms·

They should sell for a price it would make pirating it pointless. Like what Spotify or Netflix did to audio and visual content. Then they can use the exposure t

They should sell for a price it would make pirating it pointless. Like what Spotify or Netflix did to audio and visual content. Then they can use the exposure to find other ways to make money.

StefanBatory 2y ago
Or if you don't agree with the price, do not buy it. You are NOT entitled to entertain yourself in any way you want. (unless it's funded by taxes etc, in which case... okay, it's open to discussion.) Look, let's be honest - what gives you or others the right to steal from others?
- lrvick 2y ago
  If buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't stealing.
  - palata 2y ago
    Which is completely off topic. You can buy a paper book and own it, but it doesn't mean that you are allowed to make copies of it and sell them.
    - lrvick 2y ago
      If you cannot copy it, alter it, and share it as you see fit, you do not own it.
      - palata 2y ago
        Well when you buy a book, you own the copy of the book. Not the author's life work.
        lrvick 2y ago
        And I disagree with this. IP law should not exist. If I buy a thing it should be mine to do with as I see fit. The more people that share and copy data the better.
        palata 2y ago
        You're not an author, obviously. Do you put all - and I mean 100% - the code you write in the public domain?
        lrvick 2y ago
        I author a lot of technical documentation actually. Even so, yes. I make all my work public, 100%. I use public repositories as my backup for anything I create, regardless of stage of completion and so others can learn from or help improve my work as they see fit. I do not believe proprietary technology should exist and I put my code where my mouth is. Humans progress faster when we collaborate freely. Fork anything I do and make it better if you can.
        palata 2y ago
        So here you say that you put all your work in the public domain, and in a comment above you say that you don't put it in the public domain because you fear a lawsuit? How the hell does that work?
        skeaker 2y ago
        I do, save for code I'm simply too lazy to publish...
- qup 2y ago
  That's what I do, personally. But you call it "stealing," others call it "copying." Stealing takes, from someone, something they own.
  - impossiblefork 2y ago
    There's such a mass of possible works that it hardly constrains someone that if you could cast a magic spell preventing someone from distributing or accessing your particular work and then burned it, your spell would have essentially no effect-- no one would notice it and no one would be harmed. As long as discussion of a work that has published is not impeded, the public is not harmed even by these 50-years after life copyrights other than by that they are accumulated by certain companies who themselves become problems. When someone decides to use someone's work without compensation he is, even though he is not deprived of the work itself, still robbed. But it's not a theft of goods, it's theft of service. The copyright infringer isn't the guy who steals your phone, it's the guy who even you have done some work for but who refuses to pay. With this view you can also believe, without hypocrisy, that what the LLM firms are doing is wrong while what Schwartz did was not, since the authors in question weren't deprived of any royalties or payments due to them due to due to the publishing model for scientific works.
    - shkkmo 2y ago
      > But it's not a theft of goods, it's theft of service. What service? If somebody washes your windshield without you asking, it isn't a theft of service to not pay them. A theft of service arises from entering into an agreement and then failing to pay as stipulated in that agreement. Copyright isn't an agreement you can choose whether to participate in. Copyright is a legal enforcement system that imposes legal liability even on those who don't use it. You may not see this legal liability as "harm", but it absolutely is. Arguing that copyright extends to training is arguing for a dramatic increase in the scope and power of this legal enforcement system.
      - impossiblefork 2y ago
        But the thing here distinguishing it from the windshield thing is that there are so many possible texts that you choosing their particular text is to choose the work they've done. You think of choosing somebody's particular text as the way of contracting him. Just as it isn't a restriction of your freedom of speech that going into restaurant and ordering a meal creates a contract to pay, so it isn't a restriction of your freedom of speech when you choose to seek out and repeat somebody's very particular text. Why Harry Potter when you have any of hundreds of million of stories of similar sort that you could easily write yourself? When you choose that one, you choose it because it's already been prepared by somebody else, just as you choose restaurant because they've done work and have food ready for you. By choosing the one that's already written you accept that the author has done work for you.
- alickz 2y ago
  > what gives you or others the right to steal from others? I think technically it's copying more than stealing Like if you could wait for someone to design and build a car and then CTRL+C/V it for yourself (is it possible to steal in a post-scarcity society?)
  - roguecoder 2y ago
    That is the fundamental problem with trying to project property rights onto ideas. Capitalism works fine for distributing scarce goods and resources, but information and software are both public goods. In a reasonable world, we would be imposing high taxes on all LLMs and using that money to fund grants for future writers and artists. It would be good for the LLM makers in the long run, since it would give them more fuel for their models, and it would be good for the artists and writers because it would provide sustainable, reliable wages. Unfortunately, that isn't the world we live in. LLM makers don't seem to care about the impact they will have on society or even their own livelihoods, as long as they get rich today. And in addition to all the regulatory capture, we are having our governments gutted on the mere fear that they might do their job and prevent the wholesale looting of society by these new robber-barons. So with the economically-optimal approaches off the table, we have to fall back on imposing false scarcity in the hopes that maybe capitalism can limp along.
palata 2y ago
You do realise that artists don't make a living from Spotify, right?

They should sell for a price it would make pirating it pointless. Like what Spotify or Netflix did to audio and visual content. Then they can use the exposure to find other ways to make money.

StefanBatory 2y ago

Or if you don't agree with the price, do not buy it. You are NOT entitled to entertain yourself in any way you want. (unless it's funded by taxes etc, in which case... okay, it's open to discussion.) Look, let's be honest - what gives you or others the right to steal from others?

lrvick 2y ago
If buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't stealing.
- palata 2y ago
  Which is completely off topic. You can buy a paper book and own it, but it doesn't mean that you are allowed to make copies of it and sell them.
  - lrvick 2y ago
    If you cannot copy it, alter it, and share it as you see fit, you do not own it.
    - palata 2y ago
      Well when you buy a book, you own the copy of the book. Not the author's life work.
      - lrvick 2y ago
        And I disagree with this. IP law should not exist. If I buy a thing it should be mine to do with as I see fit. The more people that share and copy data the better.
        palata 2y ago
        You're not an author, obviously. Do you put all - and I mean 100% - the code you write in the public domain?
        lrvick 2y ago
        I author a lot of technical documentation actually. Even so, yes. I make all my work public, 100%. I use public repositories as my backup for anything I create, regardless of stage of completion and so others can learn from or help improve my work as they see fit. I do not believe proprietary technology should exist and I put my code where my mouth is. Humans progress faster when we collaborate freely. Fork anything I do and make it better if you can.
        palata 2y ago
        So here you say that you put all your work in the public domain, and in a comment above you say that you don't put it in the public domain because you fear a lawsuit? How the hell does that work?
        skeaker 2y ago
        I do, save for code I'm simply too lazy to publish...
qup 2y ago
That's what I do, personally. But you call it "stealing," others call it "copying." Stealing takes, from someone, something they own.
- impossiblefork 2y ago
  There's such a mass of possible works that it hardly constrains someone that if you could cast a magic spell preventing someone from distributing or accessing your particular work and then burned it, your spell would have essentially no effect-- no one would notice it and no one would be harmed. As long as discussion of a work that has published is not impeded, the public is not harmed even by these 50-years after life copyrights other than by that they are accumulated by certain companies who themselves become problems. When someone decides to use someone's work without compensation he is, even though he is not deprived of the work itself, still robbed. But it's not a theft of goods, it's theft of service. The copyright infringer isn't the guy who steals your phone, it's the guy who even you have done some work for but who refuses to pay. With this view you can also believe, without hypocrisy, that what the LLM firms are doing is wrong while what Schwartz did was not, since the authors in question weren't deprived of any royalties or payments due to them due to due to the publishing model for scientific works.
  - shkkmo 2y ago
    > But it's not a theft of goods, it's theft of service. What service? If somebody washes your windshield without you asking, it isn't a theft of service to not pay them. A theft of service arises from entering into an agreement and then failing to pay as stipulated in that agreement. Copyright isn't an agreement you can choose whether to participate in. Copyright is a legal enforcement system that imposes legal liability even on those who don't use it. You may not see this legal liability as "harm", but it absolutely is. Arguing that copyright extends to training is arguing for a dramatic increase in the scope and power of this legal enforcement system.
    - impossiblefork 2y ago
      But the thing here distinguishing it from the windshield thing is that there are so many possible texts that you choosing their particular text is to choose the work they've done. You think of choosing somebody's particular text as the way of contracting him. Just as it isn't a restriction of your freedom of speech that going into restaurant and ordering a meal creates a contract to pay, so it isn't a restriction of your freedom of speech when you choose to seek out and repeat somebody's very particular text. Why Harry Potter when you have any of hundreds of million of stories of similar sort that you could easily write yourself? When you choose that one, you choose it because it's already been prepared by somebody else, just as you choose restaurant because they've done work and have food ready for you. By choosing the one that's already written you accept that the author has done work for you.
alickz 2y ago
> what gives you or others the right to steal from others? I think technically it's copying more than stealing Like if you could wait for someone to design and build a car and then CTRL+C/V it for yourself (is it possible to steal in a post-scarcity society?)
- roguecoder 2y ago
  That is the fundamental problem with trying to project property rights onto ideas. Capitalism works fine for distributing scarce goods and resources, but information and software are both public goods. In a reasonable world, we would be imposing high taxes on all LLMs and using that money to fund grants for future writers and artists. It would be good for the LLM makers in the long run, since it would give them more fuel for their models, and it would be good for the artists and writers because it would provide sustainable, reliable wages. Unfortunately, that isn't the world we live in. LLM makers don't seem to care about the impact they will have on society or even their own livelihoods, as long as they get rich today. And in addition to all the regulatory capture, we are having our governments gutted on the mere fear that they might do their job and prevent the wholesale looting of society by these new robber-barons. So with the economically-optimal approaches off the table, we have to fall back on imposing false scarcity in the hopes that maybe capitalism can limp along.

palata 2y ago

You do realise that artists don't make a living from Spotify, right?