undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmoritzwarhier1y ago0 comments

What exactly is misleading or "clickbait" in the title?

I know that copyright covers blog posts and generally every immaterial creation published by humans that is reproducible and above a fuzzily defined threshold of "original creativity".

The other day, I was downvoted here for criticizing the often-cited "freeware" claim put out by MS.

The argument was: copyright already covers all this, I must lack knowledge about copyright law.

Now, the argument seems to have shifted to: copyright law doesn't apply the way it used to?

0 comments

verdverm1y ago

Copyright applies to the reproduction, not the consumption. We are free to read or otherwise ingest copyrighted material without legal concerns. We are free to learn from and create content based on those learnings.

Is there any precedence from banning the use of copyright material because someone (thing) might reproduce it later? Do the current copyright laws not already protect the authors and give them tools for takedowns and remuneration?

moritzwarhierOP1y ago

Isn't this about generating output after all?

I'm not sure if I get your distinction about "consumption".

> Do the current copyright laws not already protect the authors and give them tools for takedowns and remuneration?

That was also my point in the prior HN comment thread on the MS news submission that I mentioned.

Good luck starting "fair use" copyright lawsuits against a myriad of auto-generated derivatives. This was already hard for naïve creators with humans and (mostly) human-run corporations on the other end.

verdverm1y ago

If the goal is to prevent companies from training on copyright material, then yes, it is about consuming the material, not generating it. The generation part comes from anecdotal incidents where some copyright material has been generated.

- This is not the normal

- This can be changed over time, there are also moderation techniques that can be used.

- We already have remedies for those publishing or selling copyrighted material already

So I personally see a difference between training time and inference time. Using the potential for copyrighted material to be generated, to prevent its usage a training time is... luddite territory... imho

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsmoritzwarhier1y ago0 comments

What exactly is misleading or "clickbait" in the title?

I know that copyright covers blog posts and generally every immaterial creation published by humans that is reproducible and above a fuzzily defined threshold of "original creativity".

The other day, I was downvoted here for criticizing the often-cited "freeware" claim put out by MS.

The argument was: copyright already covers all this, I must lack knowledge about copyright law.

Now, the argument seems to have shifted to: copyright law doesn't apply the way it used to?

0 comments

verdverm1y ago

moritzwarhierOP1y ago

Isn't this about generating output after all?

I'm not sure if I get your distinction about "consumption".

> Do the current copyright laws not already protect the authors and give them tools for takedowns and remuneration?

That was also my point in the prior HN comment thread on the MS news submission that I mentioned.

verdverm1y ago

- This is not the normal

- This can be changed over time, there are also moderation techniques that can be used.

- We already have remedies for those publishing or selling copyrighted material already

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse