4 ms·

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

by blt 8mo ago

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.
        nhinck2 8mo ago
        Copyright act 1968. Sect 116.
        noosphr 8mo ago
        Australia doesn't have fair use either. Who cares what a country smaller than California in population and economy does?
        Lerc 8mo ago
        Section 116 (2) A plaintiff is not entitled by virtue of this section to any damages or to any other pecuniary remedy, other than costs, if it is established that, at the time of the conversion or detention: (a) the defendant was not aware, and had no reasonable grounds for suspecting, that copyright subsisted in the work or other subject - matter to which the action relates; (b) where the articles converted or detained were infringing copies--the defendant believed, and had reasonable grounds for believing, that they were not infringing copies; or (c) where an article converted or detained was a device used or intended to be used for making articles--the defendant believed, and had reasonable grounds for believing, that the articles so made or intended to be made were not or would not be, as the case may be, infringing copies. Does this not mean the opposite of your claim? It sounds to me that if you unwittingly bought a dodgy copy of something, the law thinks the copyright owner can get you to pay for a legit copy, but not punish you for your mistake. In the specific case of the Harry Potter works, the fame might meet the threshold of reasonable grounds for believing, but noosphr's argument that "Up to 80% off all works that are in copyright terms are accidentally in the public domain" could grant a reasonable grounds for believing it is not. This is one of those things that causes interesting court cases because a reasonable grounds for believing X is not the same thing as not reasonable grounds for believing not X. Reasonable grounds for suspicion probably carries more weight here than reasonable grounds for the absence of suspicion, but cases have hung on things like this before , like the presence or absence of an Oxford comma.
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?

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

by blt 8mo ago

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

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.
      - nhinck2 8mo ago
        Copyright act 1968. Sect 116.
        noosphr 8mo ago
        Australia doesn't have fair use either. Who cares what a country smaller than California in population and economy does?
        Lerc 8mo ago
        Section 116 (2) A plaintiff is not entitled by virtue of this section to any damages or to any other pecuniary remedy, other than costs, if it is established that, at the time of the conversion or detention: (a) the defendant was not aware, and had no reasonable grounds for suspecting, that copyright subsisted in the work or other subject - matter to which the action relates; (b) where the articles converted or detained were infringing copies--the defendant believed, and had reasonable grounds for believing, that they were not infringing copies; or (c) where an article converted or detained was a device used or intended to be used for making articles--the defendant believed, and had reasonable grounds for believing, that the articles so made or intended to be made were not or would not be, as the case may be, infringing copies. Does this not mean the opposite of your claim? It sounds to me that if you unwittingly bought a dodgy copy of something, the law thinks the copyright owner can get you to pay for a legit copy, but not punish you for your mistake. In the specific case of the Harry Potter works, the fame might meet the threshold of reasonable grounds for believing, but noosphr's argument that "Up to 80% off all works that are in copyright terms are accidentally in the public domain" could grant a reasonable grounds for believing it is not. This is one of those things that causes interesting court cases because a reasonable grounds for believing X is not the same thing as not reasonable grounds for believing not X. Reasonable grounds for suspicion probably carries more weight here than reasonable grounds for the absence of suspicion, but cases have hung on things like this before , like the presence or absence of an Oxford comma.

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?