5 ms·

I feel like the title is a bit misleading, unless the person who put all HP books on Kaggle as a (supposedly) CC0-licensed data set did so as a Microsoft employ

by fxwin 8mo ago

I feel like the title is a bit misleading, unless the person who put all HP books on Kaggle as a (supposedly) CC0-licensed data set did so as a Microsoft employee. Nevertheless pretty egregious oversight (incompetence?) and something that shouldn't have been published.

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
robrain 8mo ago
The original title was "LangChain Integration for Vector Support for SQL-based AI applications"
- ASalazarMX 8mo ago
  For some reason I really like this.
blt 8mo ago
What makes this different from linking to a random zip file somewhere?
- zythyx 8mo ago
  Microsoft could have used any dataset for their blog, they could have even chosen to use actual public domain novels. Instead, they opted to use copywritten works that JK hasn't released into the public domain (unless user "Shubham Maindola" is JK's alter ego).
  - bossyTeacher 8mo ago
    Rowling is known for using pseudonyms. Maybe she got tired of writing and decided to break into LLM tech.
- Lerc 8mo ago
  The licence? If it comes from a site claiming it was under a licence when it was not, the misdeed is done by the person who provided the version carrying the licence.
  - slopinthebag 8mo ago
    Oh come on. The licence was obviously incorrect and you cant escape culpability because of that.
  - wongarsu 8mo ago
    Just because it says "CC0" does not make it CC0. If you upload a dataset you don't have the rights to, any license declaration you make is null and void, and anyone using it as if it had that license is violating copyright Even if MS could claim that they were acting in good faith there really isn't much legal wiggle room for that. But it doesn't even come to that because I don't think anyone would buy that they really thought that the Harry Potter books were under the CC0
    - noosphr 8mo ago
      If you buy a pirated book on Amazon you get to keep the book and the pirate printer is the one persecuted. Same thing applies here. Up to 80% off all works that are in copyright terms are accidentally in the public domain. A well known example is Night of the Living Dead. It is not your job to check that the copiright on a work you use is the correct one.
      - nhinck2 8mo ago
        The only reason you get to keep the book is because no bothers to enforce the law, this doesn't make it legal. And it is your job to check that you have the rights to use other people's work. Ignorance is not a defence.
        ribosometronome 8mo ago
        >the law Which ones? As far as I was aware, it's a crime to redistribute copyrighted works, not receive.
- fxwin 8mo ago
  The licensing: If I steal something and tell you its free and yours for the taking, that feels different than a Fence (knowingly) buying stolen goods. It's obviously semantics and there should have been some better judgemend from MS, but downloading a dataset (stated as public domain) from kaggle feels spiritually different from piracy (e.g.: if someone uploads a less known, copyrighted data set to kaggle/huggingface under an incorrect license, are tutorials that use this data set a 'guide to pirating' this data set? To me, that feels like a wrong use of the term)
- philipwhiuk 8mo ago
  The 'artwork' they generated and the text on the blog post?
uyzstvqs 8mo ago
To clarify: Microsoft linked to a dataset on Kaggle, which is falsely labeled CC0 (Public Domain). It's the fault of the user who uploaded the dataset and misrepresented the licensing.
- Ekaros 8mo ago
  Multiple failures. One on writer of blog even for a moment considering that such data set would be legal. And next for MS for hiring such a person with that poor judgement. Namely publicly posting about it on company platform. Instead of choosing some other data set.

by fxwin 8mo ago

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

robrain 8mo ago

The original title was "LangChain Integration for Vector Support for SQL-based AI applications"

ASalazarMX 8mo ago
For some reason I really like this.

blt 8mo ago

What makes this different from linking to a random zip file somewhere?

zythyx 8mo ago
Microsoft could have used any dataset for their blog, they could have even chosen to use actual public domain novels. Instead, they opted to use copywritten works that JK hasn't released into the public domain (unless user "Shubham Maindola" is JK's alter ego).
- bossyTeacher 8mo ago
  Rowling is known for using pseudonyms. Maybe she got tired of writing and decided to break into LLM tech.
Lerc 8mo ago
The licence? If it comes from a site claiming it was under a licence when it was not, the misdeed is done by the person who provided the version carrying the licence.
- slopinthebag 8mo ago
  Oh come on. The licence was obviously incorrect and you cant escape culpability because of that.
- wongarsu 8mo ago
  Just because it says "CC0" does not make it CC0. If you upload a dataset you don't have the rights to, any license declaration you make is null and void, and anyone using it as if it had that license is violating copyright Even if MS could claim that they were acting in good faith there really isn't much legal wiggle room for that. But it doesn't even come to that because I don't think anyone would buy that they really thought that the Harry Potter books were under the CC0
  - noosphr 8mo ago
    If you buy a pirated book on Amazon you get to keep the book and the pirate printer is the one persecuted. Same thing applies here. Up to 80% off all works that are in copyright terms are accidentally in the public domain. A well known example is Night of the Living Dead. It is not your job to check that the copiright on a work you use is the correct one.
    - nhinck2 8mo ago
      The only reason you get to keep the book is because no bothers to enforce the law, this doesn't make it legal. And it is your job to check that you have the rights to use other people's work. Ignorance is not a defence.
      - ribosometronome 8mo ago
        >the law Which ones? As far as I was aware, it's a crime to redistribute copyrighted works, not receive.
fxwin 8mo ago
The licensing: If I steal something and tell you its free and yours for the taking, that feels different than a Fence (knowingly) buying stolen goods. It's obviously semantics and there should have been some better judgemend from MS, but downloading a dataset (stated as public domain) from kaggle feels spiritually different from piracy (e.g.: if someone uploads a less known, copyrighted data set to kaggle/huggingface under an incorrect license, are tutorials that use this data set a 'guide to pirating' this data set? To me, that feels like a wrong use of the term)
philipwhiuk 8mo ago
The 'artwork' they generated and the text on the blog post?

uyzstvqs 8mo ago

To clarify: Microsoft linked to a dataset on Kaggle, which is falsely labeled CC0 (Public Domain). It's the fault of the user who uploaded the dataset and misrepresented the licensing.

Ekaros 8mo ago
Multiple failures. One on writer of blog even for a moment considering that such data set would be legal. And next for MS for hiring such a person with that poor judgement. Namely publicly posting about it on company platform. Instead of choosing some other data set.