9 ms·

> Minnesota woman to pay $220,000 fine for 24 illegally downloaded songs [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/sep/11/minnesota-woman-songs-illegally

> Minnesota woman to pay $220,000 fine for 24 illegally downloaded songs [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/sep/11/minnesota-woman-songs-illegally-downloaded https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/sep/11/minnesota... [1]

gruez 1y ago
How is this relevant? >The RIAA accused her of downloading and distributing more than 1,700 music files on file-sharing site KaZaA Emphasis mine. I think most people would agree that whatever AI companies are doing with training AI models is different than sending verbatim copies to random people on the internet.
- wnevets 1y ago
  > I think most people would agree that whatever AI companies are doing with training AI models is different than sending verbatim copies to random people on the internet. I think most artist who had their works "trained by AI" without compensation would disagree with you.
  - EMIRELADERO 1y ago
    The question is: would that disagreement have the same basis as the news above? I don't think so. Artists that are against GenAI take that stance out of a perceived abstract unfairness of the situation, where the AI companies aren't copy-pasting the works per-se with each generation, but rather "taking" the "sweat of the brow" of those artists. You can agree or not about this being an actual problem, but that's where the main claim is.
    - wnevets 1y ago
      > would that disagreement have the same basis as the news above? Yes. An artist's style can and sometimes is their IP.
      - EMIRELADERO 1y ago
        No it's not? Style has been ruled pretty specifically to be uncopyrightable. Perhaps you could show me some examples?
        wnevets 1y ago
        Waits v. Frito-Lay. The court held that his voice and style were part of his brand and thus protected. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0H_hcRc0MA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0H_hcRc0MA
        EMIRELADERO 1y ago
        That has nothing to do with IP, it's a personality rights claim. The decision explicitly refuses to involve Copyright, saying that voices (and by proxy the styles) are not copyrightable. What mattered there were specific rights of publicity, not IP.
        wnevets 1y ago
        > That has nothing to do with IP, it's a personality rights claim. The US Supreme Court disagrees, the right of publicity and intellectual property law are explicitly linked. > The broadcast of a performer’s entire act may undercut the economic value of that performance in a manner analogous to the infringement of a copyright or patent. — Justice White
        EMIRELADERO 1y ago
        That's just an analog in an opinion, it's not binding. Also, that's just a new IP term then, but we were talking about copyright, not any abstract form of IP. Again, show me an example where an artist's style was used for copyright infringement in court. Can you produce even one example?
        wnevets 1y ago
  - gruez 1y ago
    Studio ghibli[1] might object to both people pirating their films and AI companies allowing their art style to be duplicated, but that's not the same as saying those two things are the same. Sharing a movie rip on bittorrent is obviously different than training an AI model that can reproduce the studio ghbili style, even to diehard AI opponents. [1] used purely as an example
    - hulitu 1y ago
      > Sharing a movie rip on bittorrent is obviously different than training an AI model that can reproduce the studio ghbili style, even to diehard AI opponents. Ok, how about training AI on leaked Windows source code ?
      - gruez 1y ago
        arguably different from both, because you microsoft could say it's a trade secret. Note I'm not claiming that because it's different, it must be okay, just that it's unfair to compare torrenting with AI training.
  - TiredOfLife 1y ago
    I think most people who had even basic understanding how AI works would disagree with you.
- jofla_net 1y ago
  Who knew alls she needed was to change the tempo, pitch, timbre, add/remove lyrics, add/subtract a few notes, rearrange harmony, put it behind a web portal with a fancy name, claim it had an inspirational muse or assume all mortal beings as being without one in the first place so it doesn't matter, and proceed to make millions off of said process methodically rather than giving it away for free, and she'd be right as rain.
  - glimshe 1y ago
    You just described pop music making. Change tempo, pitch, add/remove lyrics, etc from prior art.
- hulitu 1y ago
  > How is this relevant? She was training RI (real intelligence). Is now relevant ? Or does she has to be rich and pay some senators to be relevant ?
- breakingcups 1y ago
  Well, Facebook torrented the copyrighted material they used for training, which means they distributed all those files too. With the personal approval of Zuck. What is the difference according to you? Source: https://futurism.com/the-byte/facebook-trained-ai-pirated-books https://futurism.com/the-byte/facebook-trained-ai-pirated-bo...
  - gruez 1y ago
    Addressed this in another comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43966888 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43966888

gruez 1y ago

How is this relevant? >The RIAA accused her of downloading and distributing more than 1,700 music files on file-sharing site KaZaA Emphasis mine. I think most people would agree that whatever AI companies are doing with training AI models is different than sending verbatim copies to random people on the internet.

wnevets 1y ago
> I think most people would agree that whatever AI companies are doing with training AI models is different than sending verbatim copies to random people on the internet. I think most artist who had their works "trained by AI" without compensation would disagree with you.
- EMIRELADERO 1y ago
  The question is: would that disagreement have the same basis as the news above? I don't think so. Artists that are against GenAI take that stance out of a perceived abstract unfairness of the situation, where the AI companies aren't copy-pasting the works per-se with each generation, but rather "taking" the "sweat of the brow" of those artists. You can agree or not about this being an actual problem, but that's where the main claim is.
  - wnevets 1y ago
    > would that disagreement have the same basis as the news above? Yes. An artist's style can and sometimes is their IP.
    - EMIRELADERO 1y ago
      No it's not? Style has been ruled pretty specifically to be uncopyrightable. Perhaps you could show me some examples?
      - wnevets 1y ago
        Waits v. Frito-Lay. The court held that his voice and style were part of his brand and thus protected. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0H_hcRc0MA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0H_hcRc0MA
        EMIRELADERO 1y ago
        That has nothing to do with IP, it's a personality rights claim. The decision explicitly refuses to involve Copyright, saying that voices (and by proxy the styles) are not copyrightable. What mattered there were specific rights of publicity, not IP.
        wnevets 1y ago
        > That has nothing to do with IP, it's a personality rights claim. The US Supreme Court disagrees, the right of publicity and intellectual property law are explicitly linked. > The broadcast of a performer’s entire act may undercut the economic value of that performance in a manner analogous to the infringement of a copyright or patent. — Justice White
        EMIRELADERO 1y ago
        That's just an analog in an opinion, it's not binding. Also, that's just a new IP term then, but we were talking about copyright, not any abstract form of IP. Again, show me an example where an artist's style was used for copyright infringement in court. Can you produce even one example?
        wnevets 1y ago
- gruez 1y ago
  Studio ghibli[1] might object to both people pirating their films and AI companies allowing their art style to be duplicated, but that's not the same as saying those two things are the same. Sharing a movie rip on bittorrent is obviously different than training an AI model that can reproduce the studio ghbili style, even to diehard AI opponents. [1] used purely as an example
  - hulitu 1y ago
    > Sharing a movie rip on bittorrent is obviously different than training an AI model that can reproduce the studio ghbili style, even to diehard AI opponents. Ok, how about training AI on leaked Windows source code ?
    - gruez 1y ago
      arguably different from both, because you microsoft could say it's a trade secret. Note I'm not claiming that because it's different, it must be okay, just that it's unfair to compare torrenting with AI training.
- TiredOfLife 1y ago
  I think most people who had even basic understanding how AI works would disagree with you.
jofla_net 1y ago
Who knew alls she needed was to change the tempo, pitch, timbre, add/remove lyrics, add/subtract a few notes, rearrange harmony, put it behind a web portal with a fancy name, claim it had an inspirational muse or assume all mortal beings as being without one in the first place so it doesn't matter, and proceed to make millions off of said process methodically rather than giving it away for free, and she'd be right as rain.
- glimshe 1y ago
  You just described pop music making. Change tempo, pitch, add/remove lyrics, etc from prior art.
hulitu 1y ago
> How is this relevant? She was training RI (real intelligence). Is now relevant ? Or does she has to be rich and pay some senators to be relevant ?
breakingcups 1y ago
Well, Facebook torrented the copyrighted material they used for training, which means they distributed all those files too. With the personal approval of Zuck. What is the difference according to you? Source: https://futurism.com/the-byte/facebook-trained-ai-pirated-books https://futurism.com/the-byte/facebook-trained-ai-pirated-bo...
- gruez 1y ago
  Addressed this in another comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43966888 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43966888