3 ms·

Sorry, but what you just said is bullshit, and I'm not even sure you know it. Plenty of copyright holders don't want their creations to be trained on LLMs, reg

by mihaic 11mo ago

Sorry, but what you just said is bullshit, and I'm not even sure you know it. Plenty of copyright holders don't want their creations to be trained on LLMs, regardless of cut. There is no voice for them. The general statement of laws being applied differently by size is also more and more obvious in the recent climate.

NoMoreNicksLeft 11mo ago
The big copyright cartels are the only copyright holders out there. The people you refer to think they hold copyright on some work or another, but unless another plebe infringes on them, they'll never get a remedy for that. You think I'm wrong, but if you wrote a song (for instance) and some jackass restaurant was playing it as muzak, ASCAP takes the license money for that. They don't send you a cut. I'd say you have second class rights, but you don't even really have those.
terminalshort 11mo ago
[flagged]
- flumpcakes 11mo ago
  Then the AI training companies shouldn't have stolen (pirated) the material they want to train on. Pretty simple really.
  - terminalshort 11mo ago
    That has nothing to do with AI. It's just the same as if anyone else had pirated it. Pretty simple really.
    - flumpcakes 11mo ago
      Show me the Facebook employees going to jail for pirating millions of books. Can I pirate anything I want risk free if I say it was for training AI?
      - terminalshort 11mo ago
        Piracy is a civil offense so of course they aren't going to jail because that isn't how civil court works.
        kakacik 11mo ago
        Seems you keep repeating the same stance all over thread, without a single explanation why your opinion should be a valid one. Not really a fruitful discussion and not a way to change anyone's opinions (maybe apart from the idea that copyright owners push their rather despised agenda via artificial accounts also on HN), care to improve this?
        terminalshort 11mo ago
        I don't have to explain because judges will do it for me: https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/two-california-district-judges-rule-using-books-train-ai-fair-use https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/two-california-distr... On summary judgment too, which means the plaintiffs really had no case. Not surprising because it's the most obvious fair use ever under transformative work. So obvious that I have a hard time taking arguments to the contrary seriously and just assume they are driven by bitterness. Not that anything I have ever heard on that side actually rises to the level of an argument. Your opinion, and everyone else on this thread that agrees with you, falls under your own statement: > Seems you keep repeating the same stance all over thread, without a single explanation why your opinion should be a valid one.
        elsjaako 11mo ago
        It can be both, there have been people criminally prosecuted for copyright infringement. I will admit that it's not something that I follow daily, so I had to look for an example. But it wasn't hard to find one. https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/055157.P.pdf https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/055157.P.pdf
        terminalshort 11mo ago

by mihaic 11mo ago

NoMoreNicksLeft 11mo ago

The big copyright cartels are the only copyright holders out there. The people you refer to think they hold copyright on some work or another, but unless another plebe infringes on them, they'll never get a remedy for that. You think I'm wrong, but if you wrote a song (for instance) and some jackass restaurant was playing it as muzak, ASCAP takes the license money for that. They don't send you a cut. I'd say you have second class rights, but you don't even really have those.

terminalshort 11mo ago

[flagged]

flumpcakes 11mo ago
Then the AI training companies shouldn't have stolen (pirated) the material they want to train on. Pretty simple really.
- terminalshort 11mo ago
  That has nothing to do with AI. It's just the same as if anyone else had pirated it. Pretty simple really.
  - flumpcakes 11mo ago
    Show me the Facebook employees going to jail for pirating millions of books. Can I pirate anything I want risk free if I say it was for training AI?
    - terminalshort 11mo ago
      Piracy is a civil offense so of course they aren't going to jail because that isn't how civil court works.
      - kakacik 11mo ago
        Seems you keep repeating the same stance all over thread, without a single explanation why your opinion should be a valid one. Not really a fruitful discussion and not a way to change anyone's opinions (maybe apart from the idea that copyright owners push their rather despised agenda via artificial accounts also on HN), care to improve this?
        terminalshort 11mo ago
        I don't have to explain because judges will do it for me: https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/two-california-district-judges-rule-using-books-train-ai-fair-use https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/two-california-distr... On summary judgment too, which means the plaintiffs really had no case. Not surprising because it's the most obvious fair use ever under transformative work. So obvious that I have a hard time taking arguments to the contrary seriously and just assume they are driven by bitterness. Not that anything I have ever heard on that side actually rises to the level of an argument. Your opinion, and everyone else on this thread that agrees with you, falls under your own statement: > Seems you keep repeating the same stance all over thread, without a single explanation why your opinion should be a valid one.
      - elsjaako 11mo ago
        It can be both, there have been people criminally prosecuted for copyright infringement. I will admit that it's not something that I follow daily, so I had to look for an example. But it wasn't hard to find one. https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/055157.P.pdf https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/055157.P.pdf
        terminalshort 11mo ago