7 ms·

That’s not how companies see it. From MS point of view it’s Cursor doing it to them. The way copyright and other rights to your IP you claim to have work in p

by fsloth 1y ago

That’s not how companies see it. From MS point of view it’s Cursor doing it to them. The way copyright and other rights to your IP you claim to have work in practice, is you need to enforce those claims or loose the rights.

benoau 1y ago
Another way copyright has worked for decades is qBittorrent for instance, is not responsible for infringements by users. Along with massive carve-outs for Microsoft and the gang to avoid that responsibility too, on GitHub and YouTube and many other websites.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
hnfong 1y ago
> The way copyright and other rights to your IP you claim to have work in practice, is you need to enforce those claims or loose the rights. Generally only applies to trademarks, not copyrights. In most English speaking countries copyright is a proprietary right and you don't lose it if you don't actively enforce it. But there could be time limits to a plaintiff bringing a civil case to court (usually a couple years).
- fsloth 1y ago
  No copyright alone afaik stops anyone from abusing said rights unless you tell them to stop. Would be happy to have counterexamples.
  - hnfong 1y ago
    Of course you can't enforce your rights if you don't enforce them. That isn't what people mean by "losing" the rights. For example somewhere on the planet somebody is running a pirated copy of Windows 10. But it would be misleading to post a headline saying "Microsoft LOSES copyright over Windows 10!!!".
- tialaramex 1y ago
  It doesn't apply to trademarks either but it's convenient to insist that trademark "enforcement" is required if you're either a trademark lawyer looking for more clients or you're an aggressive litigant and you want an excuse so people will forget you're a monster. Oh the Disney corporation had to sue the village primary school because their play used a trademarked name for a folk tale everybody knows about... it's not that they are monsters who care only about money and power, they were forced to secure undisclosed damages and make children cry by some principle of law which definitely exists. Mmm sure. The last time I pointed this out on HN somebody responded with LLM generated nonsense "citing" non-existent US legal cases which they argued somehow prove I'm wrong.
  - brookst 1y ago
    Well if you’re going to cite unnamed posts where unnamed people cited some LLM to argue against you, obviously you are 100% correct.
    - tialaramex 1y ago
      Fair, I actually misremembered and it wasn't my post they responded to with LLM slop but here is a HN user named "ranger_danger" in a thread with me in it, doing exactly what I described, LLM generated "citations" of US court cases that never really happened. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43509544 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43509544 It's hard to know whether it's worse if "ranger_danger" did this on purpose and thought it's OK, or whether they didn't realise how the LLM works and thought this list was real.
      - brookst 1y ago
        While I agree that’s beyond the pale, I do not agree it necessarily means they’re wrong. It just means they are noise adding no value, and a lot of irritation. As annoying as misinformed people and hallucinating LLMs are, it is a mistake to believe they are always the exact opposite of the truth.
  - hnfong 1y ago
econnors 1y ago
Hey – hope you see this, wasn't sure another way to reach out. You left a comment ~10 years ago on an HN post about a breathing exercise. I discovered it, tried it, and since used breathing exercises to regulate an otherwise problematic amount of stress. Thank you for that.
- phatskat 1y ago
  That’s, huh, aww. This is so wonderful! If you have a link to said comment, it wouldn’t mind sharing what you learned, that would be lovely. I can also dig back ~10 years when I’m on my computer tomorrow :)

by fsloth 1y ago

benoau 1y ago

Another way copyright has worked for decades is qBittorrent for instance, is not responsible for infringements by users. Along with massive carve-outs for Microsoft and the gang to avoid that responsibility too, on GitHub and YouTube and many other websites.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

hnfong 1y ago

> The way copyright and other rights to your IP you claim to have work in practice, is you need to enforce those claims or loose the rights. Generally only applies to trademarks, not copyrights. In most English speaking countries copyright is a proprietary right and you don't lose it if you don't actively enforce it. But there could be time limits to a plaintiff bringing a civil case to court (usually a couple years).

fsloth 1y ago
No copyright alone afaik stops anyone from abusing said rights unless you tell them to stop. Would be happy to have counterexamples.
- hnfong 1y ago
  Of course you can't enforce your rights if you don't enforce them. That isn't what people mean by "losing" the rights. For example somewhere on the planet somebody is running a pirated copy of Windows 10. But it would be misleading to post a headline saying "Microsoft LOSES copyright over Windows 10!!!".
tialaramex 1y ago
It doesn't apply to trademarks either but it's convenient to insist that trademark "enforcement" is required if you're either a trademark lawyer looking for more clients or you're an aggressive litigant and you want an excuse so people will forget you're a monster. Oh the Disney corporation had to sue the village primary school because their play used a trademarked name for a folk tale everybody knows about... it's not that they are monsters who care only about money and power, they were forced to secure undisclosed damages and make children cry by some principle of law which definitely exists. Mmm sure. The last time I pointed this out on HN somebody responded with LLM generated nonsense "citing" non-existent US legal cases which they argued somehow prove I'm wrong.
- brookst 1y ago
  Well if you’re going to cite unnamed posts where unnamed people cited some LLM to argue against you, obviously you are 100% correct.
  - tialaramex 1y ago
    Fair, I actually misremembered and it wasn't my post they responded to with LLM slop but here is a HN user named "ranger_danger" in a thread with me in it, doing exactly what I described, LLM generated "citations" of US court cases that never really happened. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43509544 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43509544 It's hard to know whether it's worse if "ranger_danger" did this on purpose and thought it's OK, or whether they didn't realise how the LLM works and thought this list was real.
    - brookst 1y ago
      While I agree that’s beyond the pale, I do not agree it necessarily means they’re wrong. It just means they are noise adding no value, and a lot of irritation. As annoying as misinformed people and hallucinating LLMs are, it is a mistake to believe they are always the exact opposite of the truth.
- hnfong 1y ago

econnors 1y ago

Hey – hope you see this, wasn't sure another way to reach out. You left a comment ~10 years ago on an HN post about a breathing exercise. I discovered it, tried it, and since used breathing exercises to regulate an otherwise problematic amount of stress. Thank you for that.

phatskat 1y ago
That’s, huh, aww. This is so wonderful! If you have a link to said comment, it wouldn’t mind sharing what you learned, that would be lovely. I can also dig back ~10 years when I’m on my computer tomorrow :)