6 ms·

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

by jowea 1y ago

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.
        FireBeyond 1y ago
        > If the average Joe copied that setup there's 0% chance he'd get sued Citation needed. RIAA used to just watch torrents and sent cease and desists to everyone who connected, whether for a minute or for months. It was very much a dragnet, and I highly doubt there was any nuance of "but Your Honor, I only seeded 1MB back so it's all good".
- 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.

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

by jowea 1y ago

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

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.
        FireBeyond 1y ago
        > If the average Joe copied that setup there's 0% chance he'd get sued Citation needed. RIAA used to just watch torrents and sent cease and desists to everyone who connected, whether for a minute or for months. It was very much a dragnet, and I highly doubt there was any nuance of "but Your Honor, I only seeded 1MB back so it's all good".
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.