HN

Comments (188)

• Menu

  jcalvinowens
  I had to block meta's ASN on my personal cgit server a few weeks ago because they were ignoring robots.txt and torching it. Like hundreds of megabytes of access logs just from them, spread around different network blocks to clearly try and defeat IP based limiting. I couldn't believe it.
• Menu

  ben_w
  A lot of people would be very pleased if this leads to Zuckerberg getting even the statutory minimum damages ($750?) on each infringement.The previous infringement case with Anthropic said that while training an AI was transformative and not itself an infringement, pirating works for that purpose still was definitely infringement all by itself. The settlement was $1.5bn, so close to $3k for each of the 500k they pirated, so if Zuckerberg pirated "millions" (plural) it is quite plausible his settlement could be $6bn.
• Menu

  Telaneo
  Looking forward to the personal liability.I've wondered what the legalese justification for letting liability evaporate as it does so often with corps. So far the reasons I'm left with are 'shrugs' and 'the relevant provision (seemingly? apparently?) simply don't apply', neither of which are any good.I was going to make a joke about how we should attach magnets to Aaron Swartz' corpse, since that'd make for a pretty potent energy source, given how fast he must be spinning. But honestly, I think he would have seen this sort of thing coming, given how his case was handled and how things really haven't gotten any better.
• Menu

  soundworlds
  I should hope that if Zuckerberg isn't severely punished for this, it at least sets a legal precedent for every other person to do the same with immunity.All the Aaron Schwartzes of the future could freely share scientific papers with the world.
• Menu

  motbus3
  I know personally a case of a engineer who was told to do something despite all the legal problems because the company had lawyers for a reason
• Menu

  28304283409234
  So... "move fast and steal things"?
• Menu

  ipython
  Just gonna say... Aaron Swartz faced years of prison time and ultimately decided to take his own life... for downloading scientific journal articles... to share freely with the world (aka not even profiting from it).But a multi-billion dollar corporation downloading millions of copyrighted creative works so that they can reshape the entire labor market by training a new type of artificial intelligence model on that data set? Meh, sounds like Silicon Valley disruption, give the man a medal!
• SrslyJosh
  Rules for thee but not for me.
• Menu

  spate141
  > a Meta spokesperson said, “AI is powering transformative innovations, productivity and creativity for individuals and companies, and courts have rightly found that training AI on copyrighted material can qualify as fair use. We will fight this lawsuit aggressively.”> Authors have sued AI companies for copyright infringement before - and lost.So, basically nothing will come out of this
• Menu

  pessimizer
  Shouldn't this stuff trigger RICO? Why do torrent site operators get led off in cuffs for running operations that usually lose money, but Zuck doesn't?RICO specifically cites "criminal infringement of a copyright" as laid out in 18 U.S. Code § 2319. If the CEO tells his employees to download hundreds of thousands of works illegally in order to carry out his money-making scheme, how is that not organized crime even if (dubiously) LLM training on the material is fair use?-----RICO: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-96Definitions: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1961> As used in this chapter — (1) “racketeering activity” means (A)[...]; (B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code: [...], section 2319 (relating to criminal infringement of a copyright),[...]18 U.S. Code § 2319 - Criminal infringement of a copyright: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2319-----edit:> 18 U.S. Code § 1962 - Prohibited activities> (c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity[...].https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1962From the lawsuit:“Meta — at Zuckerberg’s direction — copied millions of books, journal articles, and other written works without authorization, including those owned or controlled by Plaintiffs and the Class, and then made additional copies of those works to train Llama,” the suit says. “Zuckerberg himself personally authorized and actively encouraged the infringement. Meta also stripped [copyright management information] from the copyrighted works it stole. It did this to conceal its training sources and facilitate their unauthorized use.”
• Menu

  nadermx
  "They then copied those stolen fruits"How are these fruits "stolen" if they still have what was allegedley stolen?Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985): The Supreme Court ruled that the unauthorized sale of phonorecords of copyrighted musical compositions does not constitute "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" goods under the National Stolen Property ActAnd even if, arguendo, sure its stolen. The purpose of copyright is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"And you would be hard pressed to prove that LLM's haven't advanced the arts and sciences, so at bare minimum transformative, ie fair use.
• HumblyTossed
  Waiting for the perp walk.Tired of the double standard that CEOs get away when bad things happen (because they can’t be everywhere all the time) but all the benefits when the company makes a great profit (because they’re personally driving results!).
• Menu

  runjake
  I don't have strong opinions on Zuck needing to be punished for this, because I have friends and family doing the same thing, although perhaps not at the same scale. I myself do not download copyrighted content. I think "rules for thee, not for me" goes both ways.
• _doctor_love
  "You can be unethical and still be legal that’s the way i live my life"- Mark Zuckerberg
• Menu

  danielmarkbruce
  Except, as the article says.... it's not copyright infringement. Whether it should be or not is another issue.
• dmitrygr
  Who will be the first to implement a one-layer three-weight model and add it to BitTorrent? Let it “train” on all downloaded files. That makes it fair use. Am I doing this right?
• lenerdenator
  The behavior will continue until a consequence is imposed.
• Menu

  josefritzishere
  I would rather Zuckerberg do 6 months in jail and probation than fine Meta.
• CalmBirch127
  [dead]
• wotsdat
  [dead]
• Menu

  qarl
  I know people really hate AI training on their work - but is it really any different than a human reading it?I know there's a complaint that AI can verbatim repeat that work. But so can human savants. No one is suing human savants for reading their books.Producing copyrighted material, of course. Training on copyrighted material... I just don't see it.EDIT: Making a perfectly valid point, but it's unpopular, so down I go.
• Menu

  0x3f
  HN really loves the copyright lobby when it's against someone they hate, huh
• Menu

  swader999
  I take issue with the use of tense used in this framing. Its not 'infringed' its 'infringing' and to say that it happened is wrong, its happening and happening continuously in these models that are in use. To say a one time payment settles it is missing the whole scope of this theft.Royalties are owed and continuously owed as these models are deployed and doing inference. How is it any different to paying a small pittance to someone every time a song is played?