3 ms·

Well hell, by that logic average citizens should be able to launder corporate intellectual property because China will never follow suit in adhering to intellec

by oooyay 1y ago

Well hell, by that logic average citizens should be able to launder corporate intellectual property because China will never follow suit in adhering to intellectual property law. I'm game if you are.

jowea 1y ago
Isn't that sort of logic precisely why China doesn't adhere to IP law?
- oooyay 1y ago
  Yes, I was being a bit facetious. It was snark intended to point out that corporations don't get to have their cake and eat it too. Either everything is free and there are no boundaries or we live by our own principles.
  - r053bud 1y ago
    It’s barely facetious though. What is stopping me from “starting an AI company” (LLC, sure), torrenting all ebooks (which Facebook did), and as long as I don’t seed, I’m golden?
    - gruez 1y ago
      >What is stopping me from “starting an AI company” (LLC, sure), torrenting all ebooks (which Facebook did), and as long as I don’t seed, I’m golden? Nothing. You don't even need the LLC. I don't think anyone got prosecuted for only downloading. All prosecutions were for distribution. Note that if you're torrenting, even if you stop the moment it's finished (and thus never goes to "seeding"), you're still uploading, and would count as distribution for the purposes of copyright law.
      - Pooge 1y ago
        Which is still what Facebook did, if I'm not mistaken. There's no way they torrented and managed to upload less than 1 bit.
        FireBeyond 1y ago
        You're right. They claimed they made efforts to minimize seeding, but minimal is not none, as you say.
        gruez 1y ago
        You can make a patched torrent client that never uploads any pieces to peers. It'd definitely be within Meta's capability to do so. The real problem is that unlike typical torrenting lawusits, they weren't caught red-handed in the act, and would therefore be hard to go after them. This might seem unfair, but it's not any different than you openly posting on Reddit that you torrent, but it'd be tough for rights holders to go after you even with such admission.
        breakingcups 1y ago
        > Previously, a Meta executive in charge of project management, Michael Clark, had testified that Meta allegedly modified torrenting settings "so that the smallest amount of seeding possible could occur," which seems to support authors' claims that some seeding occurred. And an internal message from Meta researcher Frank Zhang appeared to show that Meta allegedly tried to conceal the seeding by not using Facebook servers while downloading the dataset to "avoid" the "risk" of anyone "tracing back the seeder/downloader" from Facebook servers. Once this information came to light, authors asked the court for a chance to depose Meta executives again, alleging that new facts "contradict prior deposition testimony."
        gruez 1y ago
        >Meta allegedly modified torrenting settings "so that the smallest amount of seeding possible could occur," >Meta allegedly tried to conceal the seeding by not using Facebook servers while downloading the dataset to "avoid" the "risk" of anyone "tracing back the seeder/downloader" from Facebook servers Sounds like they used a VPN, set the upload speed to 1kb/s and stopped after the download is done. If the average Joe copied that setup there's 0% chance he'd get sued, so I don't really see a double standard here. If anything, Meta might get additional scrutiny because they're big enough of a target that rights holders will go through the effort of suing them.
  - snozolli 1y ago
    Either everything is free and there are no boundaries or we live by our own principles. Or C) large corporations (and the wealthy) do whatever they want while you still get extortion letters because your kid torrented a movie. They really do get to have their cake and eat it too, and I don't see any end to it.
  - gruez 1y ago
    >It was snark intended to point out that corporations don't get to have their cake and eat it too. "have their cake and eat it too" allegations only work if you're talking about the same entity. The copyright maximalist corporations (ie. publishers) aren't the same as the permissive ones (ie. AI companies). Making such characterizations make as much sense as saying "citizens don't get to eat their cake and eat it too", when referring to the fact that citizens are anti-AI, but freely pirate movies.
    - _aavaa_ 1y ago
      Yes they are. Look at what happened when deepseek came out. Altman started crying and alleging that deepseek was trained on OpenAI model outputs without an inkling of irony
      - gruez 1y ago
        >Altman started crying and alleging that deepseek was trained on OpenAI model outputs without an inkling of irony Can you link to the exact comments he made? My impression was that he was upset at the fact that they broke T&C of openai, and deepseek's claim of being much cheaper to train than openai didn't factor in the fact that it requried openai's model to bootstrap the training process. Neither of them directly contradict the claim that training is copyright infringement.
      - rubslopes 1y ago
        Another example: Microsoft suing pirated Windows distributors.
rollcat 1y ago
Well I always felt rebellious about the contemporary face of "rules for thee but not for me", specifically regarding copyright. Musicians remain subject to abuse by the recording industry; they're making pennies on each dollar you spend on buying CDs^W^W streaming services. I used to say, don't buy that; go to a concert, buy beer, buy merch, support directly. Nowadays live shows are being swallowed whole through exclusivity deals (both for artists and venues). I used to say, support your favourite artist on Bandcamp, Patreon, etc. But most of these new middlemen are ready for their turn to squeeze. And now on top of all that, these artists' work is being swallowed whole by yet another machine, disregarding what was left of their rights. What else do you do? Go busking?
- johnnyanmac 1y ago
  We regulate it like how we did centuries ago that lead to copyright. If we already have rules we enforce it. If no one in power wants to, we put in people who will. In the end this all comes down to needing the people to care enough.
  - rollcat 1y ago
    Disney continued to lobby to extend copyright for like half a century. A lot of people did care. What use is regulation if you can just buy it?
    - johnnyanmac 1y ago
      >a lot of people did care As did Disney, apparently. >what use is regulation if you can just buy it? I don't like it either, but it still comes down to the same issues. We vote in people who can be bought and don't make a scandal out of it when it happens. The first step to fixing that corruption is to make congress afraid of being ousted if discovered. With today's communication structure, that's easier than ever. But if the people don't care, we see the obvious Victor.
seanmcdirmid 1y ago
In the long run private IP will eventually become very public despite laws you have, it’s been like that since the Stone Age. The American Industrial Revolution was built partially on stolen IP from Britain. The internet has just sped up diffusion. You can stop it if you are willing to cut the line, but legal action is only some friction and even then only in the short term

by oooyay 1y ago

Well hell, by that logic average citizens should be able to launder corporate intellectual property because China will never follow suit in adhering to intellectual property law. I'm game if you are.

jowea 1y ago

Isn't that sort of logic precisely why China doesn't adhere to IP law?

oooyay 1y ago
Yes, I was being a bit facetious. It was snark intended to point out that corporations don't get to have their cake and eat it too. Either everything is free and there are no boundaries or we live by our own principles.
- r053bud 1y ago
  It’s barely facetious though. What is stopping me from “starting an AI company” (LLC, sure), torrenting all ebooks (which Facebook did), and as long as I don’t seed, I’m golden?
  - gruez 1y ago
    >What is stopping me from “starting an AI company” (LLC, sure), torrenting all ebooks (which Facebook did), and as long as I don’t seed, I’m golden? Nothing. You don't even need the LLC. I don't think anyone got prosecuted for only downloading. All prosecutions were for distribution. Note that if you're torrenting, even if you stop the moment it's finished (and thus never goes to "seeding"), you're still uploading, and would count as distribution for the purposes of copyright law.
    - Pooge 1y ago
      Which is still what Facebook did, if I'm not mistaken. There's no way they torrented and managed to upload less than 1 bit.
      - FireBeyond 1y ago
        You're right. They claimed they made efforts to minimize seeding, but minimal is not none, as you say.
        gruez 1y ago
        You can make a patched torrent client that never uploads any pieces to peers. It'd definitely be within Meta's capability to do so. The real problem is that unlike typical torrenting lawusits, they weren't caught red-handed in the act, and would therefore be hard to go after them. This might seem unfair, but it's not any different than you openly posting on Reddit that you torrent, but it'd be tough for rights holders to go after you even with such admission.
        breakingcups 1y ago
        > Previously, a Meta executive in charge of project management, Michael Clark, had testified that Meta allegedly modified torrenting settings "so that the smallest amount of seeding possible could occur," which seems to support authors' claims that some seeding occurred. And an internal message from Meta researcher Frank Zhang appeared to show that Meta allegedly tried to conceal the seeding by not using Facebook servers while downloading the dataset to "avoid" the "risk" of anyone "tracing back the seeder/downloader" from Facebook servers. Once this information came to light, authors asked the court for a chance to depose Meta executives again, alleging that new facts "contradict prior deposition testimony."
        gruez 1y ago
        >Meta allegedly modified torrenting settings "so that the smallest amount of seeding possible could occur," >Meta allegedly tried to conceal the seeding by not using Facebook servers while downloading the dataset to "avoid" the "risk" of anyone "tracing back the seeder/downloader" from Facebook servers Sounds like they used a VPN, set the upload speed to 1kb/s and stopped after the download is done. If the average Joe copied that setup there's 0% chance he'd get sued, so I don't really see a double standard here. If anything, Meta might get additional scrutiny because they're big enough of a target that rights holders will go through the effort of suing them.
- snozolli 1y ago
  Either everything is free and there are no boundaries or we live by our own principles. Or C) large corporations (and the wealthy) do whatever they want while you still get extortion letters because your kid torrented a movie. They really do get to have their cake and eat it too, and I don't see any end to it.
- gruez 1y ago
  >It was snark intended to point out that corporations don't get to have their cake and eat it too. "have their cake and eat it too" allegations only work if you're talking about the same entity. The copyright maximalist corporations (ie. publishers) aren't the same as the permissive ones (ie. AI companies). Making such characterizations make as much sense as saying "citizens don't get to eat their cake and eat it too", when referring to the fact that citizens are anti-AI, but freely pirate movies.
  - _aavaa_ 1y ago
    Yes they are. Look at what happened when deepseek came out. Altman started crying and alleging that deepseek was trained on OpenAI model outputs without an inkling of irony
    - gruez 1y ago
      >Altman started crying and alleging that deepseek was trained on OpenAI model outputs without an inkling of irony Can you link to the exact comments he made? My impression was that he was upset at the fact that they broke T&C of openai, and deepseek's claim of being much cheaper to train than openai didn't factor in the fact that it requried openai's model to bootstrap the training process. Neither of them directly contradict the claim that training is copyright infringement.
    - rubslopes 1y ago
      Another example: Microsoft suing pirated Windows distributors.

rollcat 1y ago

Well I always felt rebellious about the contemporary face of "rules for thee but not for me", specifically regarding copyright. Musicians remain subject to abuse by the recording industry; they're making pennies on each dollar you spend on buying CDs^W^W streaming services. I used to say, don't buy that; go to a concert, buy beer, buy merch, support directly. Nowadays live shows are being swallowed whole through exclusivity deals (both for artists and venues). I used to say, support your favourite artist on Bandcamp, Patreon, etc. But most of these new middlemen are ready for their turn to squeeze. And now on top of all that, these artists' work is being swallowed whole by yet another machine, disregarding what was left of their rights. What else do you do? Go busking?

johnnyanmac 1y ago
We regulate it like how we did centuries ago that lead to copyright. If we already have rules we enforce it. If no one in power wants to, we put in people who will. In the end this all comes down to needing the people to care enough.
- rollcat 1y ago
  Disney continued to lobby to extend copyright for like half a century. A lot of people did care. What use is regulation if you can just buy it?
  - johnnyanmac 1y ago
    >a lot of people did care As did Disney, apparently. >what use is regulation if you can just buy it? I don't like it either, but it still comes down to the same issues. We vote in people who can be bought and don't make a scandal out of it when it happens. The first step to fixing that corruption is to make congress afraid of being ousted if discovered. With today's communication structure, that's easier than ever. But if the people don't care, we see the obvious Victor.

seanmcdirmid 1y ago

In the long run private IP will eventually become very public despite laws you have, it’s been like that since the Stone Age. The American Industrial Revolution was built partially on stolen IP from Britain. The internet has just sped up diffusion. You can stop it if you are willing to cut the line, but legal action is only some friction and even then only in the short term