you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -24 points 1 week ago (42 children)

That's not what has happened. Microsoft and Epic don't want their IP used without they have been paid. They do not agree that training on Ai is theft, they agree on using their IP publicly without their consent is theft.

  • source
  • hideshow 42 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 week ago (17 children)

    Correction: They think distributing their IP without permission is a violation of their copyrights (which is true).

    "Theft" is not a thing when it comes to copyright. Every time someone uses "theft" to describe copyright infringement, the MPAA, RIAA, Microsoft, EPIC, Sony, and Disney all have a little orgasm and layoff another worker that created that IP.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [+] -24 points 1 week ago (16 children)

    That's splitting the hairs. If someone uses an IP without permission, then it is theft.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 week ago* (12 children)

    Listen: Theft is a legal term, just like copyright. When someone steals something (theft), the owner of that thing doesn't have it anymore. When someone violates copyright the owner still has the thing and can continue to make as many copies of it as they like.

    In the 80s, 90s, and 2000s the RIAA and MPAA had vast marketing campaigns trying to re-brand copyright violation as "theft". Copyright existed for centuries before Congress decided to pass The Sound Recording Act of 1971 and the Copyright Act of 1976 which was the first time (ever) that copying something without permission could be prosecuted as a criminal offense (instead of civil).

    The "Piracy is Theft" thing is literally from one of their advertising campaigns! They invented it and it's nothing but pro-corporate propaganda. Do not think for one second that anyone stands to lose significant amounts of money from piracy other than corporations and even that's debatable.

    Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem. -Gabe Newell, founder of Valve Software (Steam)

    Individuals have been copying stuff since forever and nobody cared until some bean counter invented the disproven concept of "one pirated thing == one lost sale." We all know that's not how it works! That entire concept is another form of "Hollywood Accounting":

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

    So no. Fuck no. It's not "splitting hairs."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] -12 points 1 week ago (11 children)

    If you steal an art and use it in ways you have no rights to, then it is theft.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    Yeah, if I physically stole the artwork, then yes? That's stealing. Let's cover all the bases, though, shall we?

    If I took a picture of some art, is that stealing? No. That's not illegal anywhere.

    If I then shared that picture with a friend? No. That doesn't count as a "public performance" or "public display" of the work.

    If I then shared that picture with the Internet at large? Yes, that's copyright infringement—every time someone downloaded it, that counts as one violation. Specifically, derivative copyright infringement (which is a whole world of law in itself).

    Aside: The RIAA argued in court that merely placing one of their copyrighted movies/songs on the Internet counted as distributing their work to the entire world's (Internet) population and therefore, the defendant should be held liable for billions of copyright violations for each work they merely made available (who cares about the actual number of downloads, right? LOL). THEY ASKED FOR $72 TRILLION IN DAMAGES:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/05/24/the-riaa-do-not-believe-a-word-they-say-ever-for-theyre-claiming-72-trillion-in-damages/

    Saying "piracy is theft" is playing right into their hands. Unless you're a paid corporate shill/bot, you shouldn't be making arguments on their behalf. At this point you should be asking yourself, "Are we the baddies?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    I'm talking about stealing the IP by using a copy or using the IP in any way. Not necessarily physical object. Your examples doesn't make sense, because I said if you use it in ways you have no rights. You listed examples where the user has the rights to (the ones with photo).

    I am also not talking about piracy. That's way broader and different topic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    I have no idea what you're even talking about. The only way possible to "steal IP" is to break into someone's office/home/whatever and physically take it away. The only copy of that thing that exists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    As said, I'm not talking about transfer of ownership of a specific copy. ... Am I talking Japanese? In digital the term "copy" is not hard to understand.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    If art only has monetary value, its not art, just a product.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Wrong. Art can have monetary value and be sold.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • Man, you're just everywhere trying to lick the polish off the fash boots, aren't you? Are you getting paid for this? It's difficult to believe someone would have such alarmingly stupid personal opinions and still manage to figure out how to use the internet

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 week ago (14 children)

    I'm not using their IP publically. I'm training my AI to make fortnight for the browser

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 week ago (13 children)

    I am not talking about training the Ai, I am talking about assets. If you use Fortnite IP, then you are infringing and stealing their IP. Like Halo on the browser, where you didn't have to provide the assets from the rom yourself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago* (12 children)

    But that would mean them scrapping all of my code from GitHub to train their AI would be stealing my IP! That can't be true, right? Their not thieves, right?

    Besides that's not Master Chief TM that's AI generated Master Chief. Which is ... Obviously ... Different, and not just IP laundring

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (11 children)

    Besides that’s not Master Chief TM that’s AI generated Master Chief. Which is … Obviously … Different, and not just IP laundring

    Doesn't matter. You can have IP infringement, without using the exact same likeness. It needs to be samy enough, to count as an infringement / theft.

    But that would mean them scrapping all of my code from GitHub to train their AI would be stealing my IP! That can’t be true, right? Their not thieves, right?

    I'm not talking about training the Ai.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (10 children)

    Right. When they generate code it's in the same likeness of my code. Is that really stealing?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (9 children)

    I'm talking about the IP, not code.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (8 children)
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago* (7 children)

    I don't know if you are dense or so, I'm talking about characters and a likeness of person. Do I speak Chinese? I explicitly said I am not talking about code. At this point I think you are just trolling.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    Yes code is also copy written IP. Just a characters likeness can be from a movie or game.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago* (5 children)

    Yes, and I was referring to that you can infringe an IP (that is not code!) if its not even the same character, but if it looks similar enough that you could confuse it for. That is NOT the case with code, where similar looking code cannot be an infringement. That's why I explained the difference, because they are handled differently.

    Going back to the Master Chief thing we talked. Hopefully you understand now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (4 children)

    Similar looking code can be copy right infringement for sure. Its why you have "clean room" implementations to prevent that case in court.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    You conflict two different things. No, clean room implementation has nothing to do with it. You can look at code, have a similar code to it and it wouldn't be copy right infringement. Clean room implantation is about not seeing and knowing the internals of the source code.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    Both source code and machine code are treated the same as literary works in the US. With machine code only having an deviation from this in that it is assumed unintelligible for people to understand on its own.

    Whelan Assocs. v. Jaslow Dental Lab. (3d Cir. 1986) — extended protection beyond literal code to a program's "structure, sequence and organization

    And Computer Associates Int'l v. Altai (2d Cir. 1992) only over rules that with assumption of clean room building, where one person studies the code, writes a spec stripped of those elements, patented ideas, and other assets, then gives that to someone who can reasonably say they that they're implementation of the spec won't be based on those copy written elements

    AI produced code is unsettled but I was expressing my opinion on the hypocracy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    If that was true, then you could sue any company that has similar code. But as far as I know, this never happened in the history of copyright and code. Source code is not treated the same as the likeness of characters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago*

    Both Whelan v. Jaslow (3d Cir. 1986) and Whelan v. Jaslow (3d Cir. 1986) are cases of this. The most obvious reason its not more common is because discoverabilty is much rarer.

    It's not like my source code is going to be released to box office numbers and increasingly more code is opensource to avoid the hassle of IP in a sort of public contract that it remain opensource (as defined and regulated enforced by its copyright license!).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 week ago (8 children)

    But using it privately (for profit) and calling it training data is perfectly fine.

    As such that's all anyone has to say about "their" data. It being used as training data isn't copyright infringement or IP theft, as they state themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -16 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    I think you mix up these two things. Regardless of Ai, using copyrighted material (without license) is theft.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    No it isn't theft. It's copyright infringement, which is decidedly not theft.

    These companies used everyone else's copy written material for "training" but that's fine because it was only taking that data from everyone. But once someone takes data from them, IP or not, they claim to have been harmed. But don't claim they're harming anyone else...somehow.

    They're not paying anyone for their IP, and no one should pay them for their IP. It isn't a problem for them, so it's not a problem for anyone else to do it to them.

    Do we honestly believe Microsoft doesn't have ANY IP owned by others in their training data? They've managed to completely destroy their own protections, I can't see how an actually competent Judge could see it any other way. Sure you'll find corrupt Judges that'll side with them, but that doesn't make it correct.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -16 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    No it isn’t theft. It’s copyright infringement, which is decidedly not theft.

    Copyright infringement is theft.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago (4 children)
  • [+] -14 points 1 week ago (3 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Show the law then, because theft has requirements that copyright infringement doesn't accomplish.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 week ago* (1 child)

    I'm not talking about a specific law... In example by law training Ai by content without your consent is not theft. But yet, we know it is theft.

    What law are you talking about?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago

    Copyright infringement is copyright infringement.

    Theft is theft.

    These things are not the same regardless of how you feel about them. No country treats copyright infringement as theft, and no country treats theft as copyright infringement. They are legally different things with different requirements.

    Copyright infringement can potentially feel like theft, but it still isn't, because it does not meet the legal criteria for theft.

    These are legal terms, they are not based on how you feel.

  • source
  • parent