3 ms·

I get so tired by this. Yes. It's not proportional to the crime. You are either deliberately or accidentally, and I'm too frustrated hearing this too often not

I get so tired by this. Yes. It's not proportional to the crime. You are either deliberately or accidentally, and I'm too frustrated hearing this too often not to be biased it's the former, equating what is a large sum of money relative to your wallet and bank accounts and loan access and portfolios and whatever collection of financial impositions you can make to that of a company that has one person flying around the world influencing the future of billions of people on one planet over dinner and jokes. Yes. $3000 is peanuts. People that own islands would use that to pay someone's bonus for a year if they liked their service, as a gift. A throwaway. Fix your relative understanding of power and influence.

jen729w 1mo ago
Fix your relative understanding of how much the average book makes.
- tavavex 1mo ago
  It doesn't matter how much it makes. If the system finds that you've financially damaged someone, you aren't asked to just pay back the exact retail price of one unit. It can account for the overall damage to the owner, your scale, ability to pay, and the time and money wasted to get the money out of you. The penalty can be anything.
ben_w 1mo ago
> You are either deliberately or accidentally, and I'm too frustrated hearing this too often not to be biased it's the former, equating what is a large sum of money relative to your wallet and bank accounts and loan access and portfolios and whatever collection of financial impositions you can make to that of a company that has one person flying around the world influencing the future of billions of people on one planet over dinner and jokes. I'm not, but you are. Especially as you continue: > Yes. $3000 is peanuts. People that own islands would use that to pay someone's bonus for a year if they liked their service, as a gift. A throwaway. The penalty (well, settlement) for the (civil offence, not crime) isn't $3000 total, it's $1.5 billion total. (Previous poster wrote ">$1bn", true but implicitly rounding down the total). The settlement *per book* is $3000. There were a lot of books, reportedly half a million distinct works, so the total was $1.5 billion. You're looking at $3000 as if it's the penalty for all of it, not the penalty per book. $3000 per book is entirely on-par with the per-infringement penalties when an individual does it, too.
- lostmsu 1mo ago
  It is not just a civil offence. It is potentially an organized crime.
  - ben_w 1mo ago
    The actual case was literally pursued as a civil offence. "Potentially" is not a useful adjective. The TLDR I've been given is that it's civil when the prosecution is a non-government entity (private person or company), and when the penalty is an injunction or a fine, and when the standard is "preponderance of the evidence". Conversely, it's criminal when the prosecution is a government/when the sought penalty is imprisonment, and when the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt".
- exogenousdata 1mo ago
  “$3000 per book is entirely on-par with the per-infringement penalties when an individual does it, too.” Three things to note. 1. As you said, copyright infringement is generally treated for each instance. This one-time payment would include a single use. Each training would be a separate infringement. And it could be argued that each use by a user of the model could be considered a separate infringement. 2. Generally copyright fines are increased if the persons doing the infringing action know what they are doing. Aka, ‘willful infringement.’ It’s hard to imagine companies like OpenAI were unaware of the possibility of their actions being considered infringement. 3. Often restitution of infringement includes money made by the infringer. So not simply, “your book is worth $3000.” But rather? “Your book is worth $3000 AND this company has derived an additional $50,000 of revenue from it.”
  - tikimcfee 1mo ago
    Exactly, and that mentality is hitting the first responders point again harder. I'll say it again. $3000 because I stole a book and did something bad ruins my life, and could put me in a room where my personal freedoms are infringed. It is designed to disincentivize me from doing the bad thing. What you (first responder) are defending is that if you just steal enough of them all at once, and then make enough money from it, you are able to pay the fee and not have your freedoms taken away to do it again, and profit again. This means objectively, there is no disincentive, so that "rule" does completely different things for completely different contexts, and the point is muddied by pretending that "well I paid the fee!" Is the point. The point is to tell the thing doing the bad thing not to do the bad thing. This is why I get so frustrated. People are so flipping blinding by dollars and whatabouts that it's just.. like I said, I have to believe for many people it's an inherent unacknowledged miss on what the point of a justice system and a law is, or it's a veiled defense for themselves knowing that, maybe, they would do the same if they could. I have met those people, and I do not want them in positions of power, or leadership.

jen729w 1mo ago

Fix your relative understanding of how much the average book makes.

tavavex 1mo ago
It doesn't matter how much it makes. If the system finds that you've financially damaged someone, you aren't asked to just pay back the exact retail price of one unit. It can account for the overall damage to the owner, your scale, ability to pay, and the time and money wasted to get the money out of you. The penalty can be anything.

ben_w 1mo ago

> You are either deliberately or accidentally, and I'm too frustrated hearing this too often not to be biased it's the former, equating what is a large sum of money relative to your wallet and bank accounts and loan access and portfolios and whatever collection of financial impositions you can make to that of a company that has one person flying around the world influencing the future of billions of people on one planet over dinner and jokes. I'm not, but you are. Especially as you continue: > Yes. $3000 is peanuts. People that own islands would use that to pay someone's bonus for a year if they liked their service, as a gift. A throwaway. The penalty (well, settlement) for the (civil offence, not crime) isn't $3000 total, it's $1.5 billion total. (Previous poster wrote ">$1bn", true but implicitly rounding down the total). The settlement *per book* is $3000. There were a lot of books, reportedly half a million distinct works, so the total was $1.5 billion. You're looking at $3000 as if it's the penalty for all of it, not the penalty per book. $3000 per book is entirely on-par with the per-infringement penalties when an individual does it, too.

lostmsu 1mo ago
It is not just a civil offence. It is potentially an organized crime.
- ben_w 1mo ago
  The actual case was literally pursued as a civil offence. "Potentially" is not a useful adjective. The TLDR I've been given is that it's civil when the prosecution is a non-government entity (private person or company), and when the penalty is an injunction or a fine, and when the standard is "preponderance of the evidence". Conversely, it's criminal when the prosecution is a government/when the sought penalty is imprisonment, and when the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt".
exogenousdata 1mo ago
“$3000 per book is entirely on-par with the per-infringement penalties when an individual does it, too.” Three things to note. 1. As you said, copyright infringement is generally treated for each instance. This one-time payment would include a single use. Each training would be a separate infringement. And it could be argued that each use by a user of the model could be considered a separate infringement. 2. Generally copyright fines are increased if the persons doing the infringing action know what they are doing. Aka, ‘willful infringement.’ It’s hard to imagine companies like OpenAI were unaware of the possibility of their actions being considered infringement. 3. Often restitution of infringement includes money made by the infringer. So not simply, “your book is worth $3000.” But rather? “Your book is worth $3000 AND this company has derived an additional $50,000 of revenue from it.”
- tikimcfee 1mo ago
  Exactly, and that mentality is hitting the first responders point again harder. I'll say it again. $3000 because I stole a book and did something bad ruins my life, and could put me in a room where my personal freedoms are infringed. It is designed to disincentivize me from doing the bad thing. What you (first responder) are defending is that if you just steal enough of them all at once, and then make enough money from it, you are able to pay the fee and not have your freedoms taken away to do it again, and profit again. This means objectively, there is no disincentive, so that "rule" does completely different things for completely different contexts, and the point is muddied by pretending that "well I paid the fee!" Is the point. The point is to tell the thing doing the bad thing not to do the bad thing. This is why I get so frustrated. People are so flipping blinding by dollars and whatabouts that it's just.. like I said, I have to believe for many people it's an inherent unacknowledged miss on what the point of a justice system and a law is, or it's a veiled defense for themselves knowing that, maybe, they would do the same if they could. I have met those people, and I do not want them in positions of power, or leadership.