100
Deleted (aussie.zone)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
133 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 3 months ago* (13 children)

Yes, they can upload copyrighted stuff, but people typically don't do so on large scale and when they knowingly do it these days they typically try to hide their tracks well enough that law firms know it will not be a lucrative business to try and blackmail them.

And one of Codeberg's main points is the unknown copyright status, you just failed to understand it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (12 children)

    Yeah - it's well known that scripts to automate doing bad things did not exist before llms.

    People have tried using forges to host explicitly illegal material all the time. Not just "this may be a copyright issue perhaps maybe".

    The copyright complaint is a fig leaf to hide their shame.

    They also outright banned cryptocurrency code with no "copyright fig leaf" apologia.

    It's code puritanism plain and simple. "We don't like these things so we're banning them."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (11 children)

    You are still not understanding the issue.

    LLMs cause a lot of people to unknowingly violate copyright, and those people then become easy targets for malicious copyright litigation. And Codeberg is caught in the middle of that and doesn't want to be involved in the resulting mass legal cases because they are just a small volunteer organisation without a legal team.

    And Codeberg's explanation is very clear that is isn't a blanket ban on LLM generated code for "purity" reasons. It is a risk mitigation strategy against projects that are mostly LLM generated.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago*

    LLMs cause a lot of people to unknowingly violate copyright, and those people then become easy targets for malicious copyright litigation

    I'd buy that. As a mediocre musician, one can even subconsciously 'sample' a copyrighted piece. I mean, there are only so many chords and combinations, melodies, etc, so duplicates, and even exact duplicates are bound to happen whether intentional or not. If you upload your track to say SoundCloud on the professional plan with which you intend to generate revenue, the track is heavily scrutinized, and often rejected for this very reason. You actually have to prove it's OC by various means. They don't want any pieces parts of any litigation that may even mildly involve them. So, I can see that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    This hasn't happened. It's a fantasy.

    Maybe you don't understand copyright?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    What hasn't happened? Sure, this isn't wide spread yet, but it also took malicious law firms a while before they realized going after p2p torrent users is a lucrative business.

    And I seem to have a much better grasp at copyright than you do.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (7 children)

    P2P torrent users are nothing like a code hosting platform. 🤣

    As has been said - their liability for llm code is no different from hosting any other code. They already have the same risk. And that is typically that they must respond to take-down notices which they are already doing.

    They are already dealing with all of the problems they would be dealing with with llm code.

    It's just code puritanism wrapped in pseudo legal justification. Own it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    At this point I must assume you are trolling 🤦

    It is a totally different thing to have the occasional copyright take down request from a legitimate copyright holder, or hosting code that is in the majority likely copyright infringing and just waiting for someone to start targeting for mass copyright litigation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    This is wild unfounded speculation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (4 children)

    It is not. There are plenty of studies showing that LLMs spit out code that is near verbatim to existing code and LLM companies even go so far as to instruct their models to not also add the corresponding license/copyright headers with that code.

    There are probably law firms analysing common code patterns LLMs often use right now and are approaching copyright holders of similar enough code to buy up the rights. It might not all stand up in court, but it will be enough to scare some people into settling for fee that guarantees a profit for these law firms. This is a tried and true method for an entire industry of law firms.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    "It's not..."

    "There are probably law firms..."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    You realized that those parts refer to two different things? But since you clearly live in a world entirely detached from reality I don't think this makes sense to discuss further.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    You know what's funny? Codeberg has said nothing about being concerned about liability.

    Their terms service change simply mentions that they require certain licenses and that they have concern over the licensing of LLM meeting that standard.

    Event their follow up communication says absolutely nothing of liability.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •