Conversation
@jeffcliff Ehh, it's a claim of copyright infringement via proprietary software and SaaSS that could be valid.
I'm not going to complain if the DMCA is wielded as a weapon against companies who peddle proprietary software and SaaSS.
I'm not going to complain if the DMCA is wielded as a weapon against companies who peddle proprietary software and SaaSS.
2
0
0
@jeffcliff imagine writing science fiction and getting triggered by having the writing ingested by computers.
0
0
1
@jeffcliff LLM's cannot learn - all those can do is copy and corrupt.
It's already legal precedent that copying a work without authorization is copyright infringement and it doesn't magically become legal just because you use proprietary software and SaaSS (a LLM) to copy it.
It's already legal precedent that copying a work without authorization is copyright infringement and it doesn't magically become legal just because you use proprietary software and SaaSS (a LLM) to copy it.
0
0
1
@jeffcliff >reduce the information fed in and generalize from it. *that's learning*
That's like saying a lossy pass filter and then resampling is learning.
The proprietary books are proprietary and are thus poisoned - one shouldn't copy the fruit of the poisoned tree - one should find a free book to copy instead, via some method that doesn't include running proprietary software and SaaSS.
That's like saying a lossy pass filter and then resampling is learning.
The proprietary books are proprietary and are thus poisoned - one shouldn't copy the fruit of the poisoned tree - one should find a free book to copy instead, via some method that doesn't include running proprietary software and SaaSS.
0
0
1
@jeffcliff >bootstrapping humanity to a better place
>will require ripping the spines and getting the information out of their pages and putting it in a free format.
Using proprietary software and SaaSS to put the text into an even more proprietary format is not something that is good for humanity.
>will require ripping the spines and getting the information out of their pages and putting it in a free format.
Using proprietary software and SaaSS to put the text into an even more proprietary format is not something that is good for humanity.
0
0
1
@jeffcliff LLM's cannot lie, as lying requires intelligence.
LLMs are simply more often than not wrong.
LLMs are simply more often than not wrong.
1
0
0
@Suiseiseki @jeffcliff my heckin random word generator generated random words it's hallucinating and lying guys!!!
0
0
2
@jeffcliff "Bullshit generators" or more accurate "bullshit copiers" or "autocorrect, iterated" are some suggestions.
0
0
1
@jeffcliff Most people have personal experience with so called "autocorrect" deciding to edit a correct word with a wrong one - so they aren't going to assume that it must be correct.
0
0
1
@jeffcliff "Autocannect?"
"Sorry, I typed autocorrect, but it decided to automatically edit it to autocannect".
"Sorry, I typed autocorrect, but it decided to automatically edit it to autocannect".
0
0
2
@Suiseiseki @jeffcliff isn't this fair use? I think research doesn't even have to fulfill fair use as long as it's not just plagiarism
1
0
1
@Suiseiseki @jeffcliff
Companies who peddle proprietary software and saas are rich. They can negotiate whatever disagreements directly with copyright holders, pay them for using their proprietary data, or pay the lawyer army to defend them in court for the rest of time. Look at what happened between suno and music labels.
Meanwhile, every smol research group that creates free ai models gonna be cooked.
Companies who peddle proprietary software and saas are rich. They can negotiate whatever disagreements directly with copyright holders, pay them for using their proprietary data, or pay the lawyer army to defend them in court for the rest of time. Look at what happened between suno and music labels.
Meanwhile, every smol research group that creates free ai models gonna be cooked.
0
0
1
@snacks @jeffcliff Fair use is very weak and is more of a defense - at most fair use allows copying a sentence or two verbatim for quoting.
Plagiarism is defined as rewriting all of the ideas in your own words without copying any of the original text and claiming that you wrote that everything was your ideas.
Plagiarism done correctly is not copyright infringement and therefore is not illegal.
Plagiarism is defined as rewriting all of the ideas in your own words without copying any of the original text and claiming that you wrote that everything was your ideas.
Plagiarism done correctly is not copyright infringement and therefore is not illegal.
1
0
1
Sister Fucking Vaporeon Enjoyer
Dudebro@nicecrew.digital
Fair use and copyright is hopefully going to see a massive overhaul this century. I know this is over language models, but it equally applies to the stagnation in creativity due to stifling the spread of ideals and works. Its ludicrous how long ip coverage truly is especially on things such as music. Imagine if scales were copyright protected, and only Rhianna could sing in a flat major.
1
0
1
@jeffcliff @snacks Human learning is quite clearly copyright infringement, but human learning is excepted, as the copyright brain damage cannot be taken that far.
0
0
2
@jeffcliff @Suiseiseki especially in this case it's a very transformative application of the original material. I wouldn't really call what llms do learning in the traditional sense as they generally won't end up archiving their own styles by "learning" from artists or authors
0
0
0
@Suiseiseki @jeffcliff fair use also allows for transformative applications. Generating questions based on a story seems very transformative
0
0
1
FAGGOT OWL! 🦉
lonelyowl13@detroitriotcity.com
@jeffcliff @Suiseiseki @snacks
Nothing is fair use, unless you have lawyers to prove that it's fair use.
I think nowadays you can just mindlessly hate any party that is trying to achieve something with copyright and be correct 95% of time.
Nothing is fair use, unless you have lawyers to prove that it's fair use.
I think nowadays you can just mindlessly hate any party that is trying to achieve something with copyright and be correct 95% of time.
0
0
1
@Dudebro @snacks @jeffcliff Imaginary property does not exist - using that term gives even more credibility to a confusion.
Copyright laws can only hand public rights to private interests - it can't every go back according to the USA congress.
Yes, the copyright term length is ridiculous - music is not a special case - the ludicrously long term length apply to almost all works.
Many patents have been granted, with restrictions very much like a patent saying that only Rhianna could sing in a flat major - but at least those expire after 20 years (too bad patent offices just proceed to grant another invalid patent).
Copyright laws can only hand public rights to private interests - it can't every go back according to the USA congress.
Yes, the copyright term length is ridiculous - music is not a special case - the ludicrously long term length apply to almost all works.
Many patents have been granted, with restrictions very much like a patent saying that only Rhianna could sing in a flat major - but at least those expire after 20 years (too bad patent offices just proceed to grant another invalid patent).
0
0
1
Sister Fucking Vaporeon Enjoyer
Dudebro@nicecrew.digital
Yeah, I dont entirely understand or know the terms correctly. Its just frustrating watching mediums stagnate because corporations just get to own ideas for decades.
1
0
2
Nicholas Conrad
nicholas@aklp.clubThe problem is that the situation is not:
Abolish the DMCA
Use the DMCA against the bots
DMCA use is already plenty normalized by megacorpos against the plebs. Everyone who 'matters' is perfectly happy with the situation. No amount of principled refusal to use the DMCA against megacorps will make it go away. But normalizing plebs using the DMCA against megacorps might actually create an incentive for reform.
0
0
1
@Dudebro @snacks @jeffcliff Imaginary property is a psyop to confuse people between copyright laws, patent laws, trademark laws, trade secret laws that is very successful.
The GNU article explains it quite well.
Corporations still cannot own general ideas on a creative topic (although there have been many general idea patents granted on basic mathematical ideas) - but they do gladly copy a work from the public domain, sanitize it and then ensure it never returns to the public domain.
One of the reason why people don't bother to produce works of a general idea is that it's very hard to get people to even realize a work exists even with the internet - as people just keep going for the corpo slop.
The GNU article explains it quite well.
Corporations still cannot own general ideas on a creative topic (although there have been many general idea patents granted on basic mathematical ideas) - but they do gladly copy a work from the public domain, sanitize it and then ensure it never returns to the public domain.
One of the reason why people don't bother to produce works of a general idea is that it's very hard to get people to even realize a work exists even with the internet - as people just keep going for the corpo slop.
0
0
1
FAGGOT OWL! 🦉
lonelyowl13@detroitriotcity.com
@jeffcliff @Suiseiseki @snacks @Dudebro
Music isn't a special case legally. But it is a special case practically, because music rights holders are incredibly rich and known for their copyright extremism.
Attempts to take down ai image generators on copyright ground were all either unsuccessful, or not impactful. We still have free and open weights ai image generators, they are doing great. We barely have any free and open weights music generators.
Or, if you prefer to look at something other than AIs.
You put someone's drawing with anime woman on your youtube video background, and nothing will happen. If you put some pop song on background, in the best case you will be demonetized, in worst case your video and your channel will be removed.
Music isn't a special case legally. But it is a special case practically, because music rights holders are incredibly rich and known for their copyright extremism.
Attempts to take down ai image generators on copyright ground were all either unsuccessful, or not impactful. We still have free and open weights ai image generators, they are doing great. We barely have any free and open weights music generators.
Or, if you prefer to look at something other than AIs.
You put someone's drawing with anime woman on your youtube video background, and nothing will happen. If you put some pop song on background, in the best case you will be demonetized, in worst case your video and your channel will be removed.
0
0
1