Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: Purple Library GuyBut let's not forget that copyright as a concept is recent (unlike, say, murder, or even theft). There was no copyright in the Middle Ages or even the Renaissance.

That depends on your definition of old the printing press and copyright law were introduced in the late middle ages (1400-1500)

There were printing presses for some time before there was copyright.
Wikipedia:
"The British Statute of Anne 1710, full title "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned", was the first copyright statute."

I'd say that, as I stated, is past the Middle Ages or even the Renaissance. Maybe not quite capitalism, but certainly starting to head that way. And 1710 did not mark full blown arrival of the copyright regime, when you consider that this is the first such statute, it was very limited compared to later ones, only applied to Britain, and I wouldn't be surprised if it took a while before anyone really started paying attention.

But even if you had been right about that detail, that would still be a rather small smidge of human history and my overall point would remain sound.

The first copyright privilege granted to a publisher was in Venice in 1489 over the work "Rerum venetarum ab urbe condita opus". Certainly back than copyright functioned more like patent in that you had to apply for a copyright instead of getting it automatically.
also 1710 is still older than the US constitution(the oldest constitution still in force) 1787.
Also my statement about it being older than the concept constitution is wrong. That was introduced by Aristotle in 350BC.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Pengling

Quoting: LoudTechieGAAH.
I knew Nintendo was old, but that they predated the modern computer nearly half a century is new to me.

Yeah, Coca-Cola had only existed for three years when Nintendo was founded! :shock: And in some form or another, they've always been connected to entertainment somehow for all that time.

Quoting: LoudTechieThis explains to me how a mere game company managed to amass so much power.
{LoudTechie freezes and their eyes turn black and flashy}

They're actually not a very powerful company and have no real protections in Japan as a result - that's why they have to be so litigious, because basically their IPs are all they have and they're in trouble if they lose their grip on that. There's a really good ~30-minute video-documentary on that here [External Link] - give it a watch. :smile:

I was refering to them controlling their own hardware empire.
The Nintendo consoles.
That having said, it's indeed an interesting watch.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Pengling

Quoting: tuubiWhat are you basing that on? There's limited info available publicly, but seems like the highest selling Switch games published by Nintendo, for example, have reached about 50-60 million copies sold based on Nintendo's own quarterly reports.

Well, they've sold billions since they entered the video games industry - that much is well-recorded [External Link], at least. Last year (projected in February [External Link] and later achieved in May), the Switch's library alone hit the milestone of accounting for 1 billion of the company's lifetime 5.5 billion software units sold.

GAAH.
I knew Nintendo was old, but that they predated the modern computer nearly half a century is new to me.
This explains to me how a mere game company managed to amass so much power.
{LoudTechie freezes and their eyes turn black and flashy}

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: LoudTechieIt's just that Nintendo sells billions of licenses

What are you basing that on? There's limited info available publicly, but seems like the highest selling Switch games published by Nintendo, for example, have reached about 50-60 million copies sold based on Nintendo's own quarterly reports.

Truly nothing except my ideas of how big some of these companies are, but here is an afterwards justification.
Nintendo sold 123million+ switches. They would've to sell around 9 game licenses to the average customer to get on the billions list. According to the "how big is your game library" thread Valve has a chance of achieving this(most of these people achieve hundreds of games a year). If Valve can do it Nintendo can do it.
That having said their own quartily reports are a lot more trustworthy, so I'm wrong.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library GuyBut let's not forget that copyright as a concept is recent (unlike, say, murder, or even theft). There was no copyright in the Middle Ages or even the Renaissance.

That depends on your definition of old the printing press and copyright law were introduced in the late middle ages (1400-1500)
As such it's older than the USA, western hegemony, most European countries smaller than Portugal, the entire concept of a constitution, all still existing fully democratic governmental systems and the general solution to volume calculations.

Quoting: Purple Library GuyAnd there doesn't seem to be anything else in the wind that would make it worth all the expense of making the AI.

There is another reason it's worth it.
Few entities have the budget to do it.
A problem with software companies is that in theory their entire advantage exist in having more and better employees and ideas than the rest, but that is a really fleeting position. Monopolizing ideas is temporary, expensive and hard to maintain international and employees move a lot.
In practice they also have things like hosting costs, the network effect, etc, but for this entire list of things is true that they depend on a lot of other parties.
The risk of some young upstart screwing up your entire business still exists and happens to Facebook all the time.
LLMs allows you to buy tools that nobody else can get without a massive investment and profit from it in software space.
This notion is decaying though training a full competing LLM can nowadays be done with just 100.000 euros of hardware.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EWGMeh. All these monsters mimic animals, plants, fungi, and objects IRL. There's bound to be a certain level of overlap.

So long as they don't have any major stars that are too similar to Pikachu, the starters, or other famous pokémon then I don't think The Pokémon Company or Nintendo have water to bathe in or whatever that expression is.

That being said, I imagine the aforementioned companies need to have their diapers changed at the looming success of this upcoming game. 🤭

If only Nintendo would play fair and embrace F/LOSS and hackers....
They can't beat 'em!

This will definitely tip a few sales towards thr Deck over the Switch.

That being said, we need major competitors versus the conglomerates that are sony & μshaft.

You're way too optimistic.
The total value of the sales of this game will probably disappear within the rounding margin of error of Nintendo and the amount of switch consoles sold won't even budge.
Part of the reason they won't notice this is, because they've locked themselves mostly out of the influence of F/LOSS and hackers, with their self controlled store this game won't get in.

That doesn't mean it won't be a success.
It will sell millions of licenses. Get ported to mobile, Xbox and Playstation attract hundreds of players to the SteamDeck.
It's just that Nintendo sells billions of licenses for a higher price and more merchandise and ports their games to "wherever they desire".
Oh and marketing deals with Nintendo are worth more, because they target more vulnerable demographics.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: 14

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: 14I think I was misunderstood. We all watch movies, play video games, and read books, right? That influences our imagination. So when you make your own creative work, it is influenced by all those things. This is undeniable. Sigh.

Many know you meant that(it's a common argument made in this kind of discussions).
Penglin argued in reaction that although we do as you described, we pay for the privilege of reading, watching and playing things before getting inspired, which OpenAI didn't do(they just downloaded the content from piracy sites).

I argued that making things that contain unlicensed copyrighted elements is always illegal including for entities and "proofed" that with the legal standing fan fiction.
Someone correctly pointed out to me that in the case of fan fiction it's sometimes not illegal(if you can show you didn't negatively affect the sale of the original).
I argued that OpenAI still wouldn't be able to claim that, because they did negatively affect the sale of the original.

Someone else(too lazy to check who) argued that, that is only a persuasive argument to the law if you treat the AI as a separate entity capable and the law only treats citizens and some kinds of companies as entities. The AI is neither of these things.
This is an effect of the context dependence of the law, which I find hard to understand, so I'm assuming you also think so.
This my attempt at explaining it.
You know how wNK3c5Z5 is a random generated string and thus useful for security, wNK3c5Z5 isn't secure, because it's a copy of the first one and thus not randomly generated.
The strings are identical and still one is secure and the other isn't. It's because of the context one is randomly generated, while the other isn't.
The law deals with these kind of differences all the time.
If I make an AI that exactly behaves and looks likes exactly like some human with a driving license the AI still can't be allowed to drive alone, because it isn't an adult citizen with a driving license and thus can't be held responsible for its deeds.
If I smash a soft wax stamp in a statue and use the stamp as a mall to make more of that statue I'm also violating copyright although I didn't have to make any of the movements the artist.

Sorry you went through the trouble to make a large post, but appreciate it.

I don't have a strong opinion in favor of AI here. But I like trying to understand why each perspective somehow makes sense to the owner of that perspective. My choice words I think there is an argument is me saying there is a compelling-enough argument to have an argument, but I don't think I'd be the one playing representative because I haven't chosen a side.

Out of the handful of debatable elements you pointed out, in my own words, I think the most compelling argument content creators of any kind have against current AI usage in terms of copyrighted material is that AI chat bots can effectively become a proxy to same information and harm creator profits by eliminating sales of said content as well as ad traffic for "free" content. Acting as a proxy is like hijacking in a way... mm, let's say mimicking or miming. In another way, you could say it is redistribution, which is a clear topic in copyright law as far as I know. Yeah, I think if lawyers can convince judges that AI falls under redistribution of copyrighted material, that is winnable.

First. No, issue.
I like writing long blog posts.
Second.
Good attempt. Something that could help is the blog post itself it contains some legal arguing form OpenAI.
Third.
You're certainly correct. The actual legal defense of OpenAI in their post is aimed at the exact strategy you describe in this post. They claim "fair use", which means they claim they don't harm the sale of the original.

Yes, this basically means denying the allegation.
I'm curios how they will defend against Penglin's argument(downloading without paying from recognized piracy sites is piracy).
The OpenAI blog post seems to really limit their ability to defend against such an accusation and it matters, because it's the one allegation I'm certain can get them their computers sized(those things are expensive and could reveal most of their database to the public in the inevitable court case).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Pengling

Quoting: tuubiThe catching ball mechanic has been copied by plenty of monster catching games before,

This mechanic originated in the 1994 SNES RPG Robotrek [External Link], and Enix (who, as we know, later merged with Square to form Square-Enix) has never taken any action about it that I'm aware of.

Let's be honest, the "keeping a creature in a ball" idea is inspired by gachapon toys, so there's generic prior-art from long before any video game employed the idea. :smile:

Pengling, the extend of your knowledge of the history of game development is scary sometimes, you know that?
I can see you are using a search engine, but that's not such a powerful excuse as you might think.
The fact that you are using it in a casual conversation means that you knew many of the basic facts and just tried to fill in the blanks with it.
I'm happy to converse with such a knowledgable person about their subject, but wow.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: LoudTechieSomeone else(to lazy to check who) argued that, that is only a persuasive argument to the law if you treat the AI as a separate entity and the law only treats citizens and some kinds of companies as entities. The AI is neither of these things.

Yeah, this should be obvious. The AI isn't a person or a corporate entity. It's a tool, and whoever operates this tool is the one who would have to make sure they're not using copyrighted materials without license. The AI itself has no agency, which underlines the absurdity of the term as applied to these algorithms.

Obvious is relative.
For all my life I've trained in the way of "if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck it's a duck".
To me this is the most challenging aspect of the legal system I seriously interact with.
The only reason I somewhat understand it is, because I've looked in the effects of copyright in my terrain of study before AI got cool.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: 14I think I was misunderstood. We all watch movies, play video games, and read books, right? That influences our imagination. So when you make your own creative work, it is influenced by all those things. This is undeniable. Sigh.

Many know you meant that(it's a common argument made in this kind of discussions).
Penglin argued in reaction that although we do as you described, we pay for the privilege of reading, watching and playing things before getting inspired, which OpenAI didn't do(they just downloaded the content from piracy sites).

I argued that making things that contain unlicensed copyrighted elements is always illegal including for entities and "proofed" that with the legal standing fan fiction.
Someone correctly pointed out to me that in the case of fan fiction it's sometimes not illegal(if you can show you didn't negatively affect the sale of the original).
I argued that OpenAI still wouldn't be able to claim that, because they did negatively affect the sale of the original.

Someone else(too lazy to check who) argued that, that is only a persuasive argument to the law if you treat the AI as a separate entity capable and the law only treats citizens and some kinds of companies as entities. The AI is neither of these things.
This is an effect of the context dependence of the law, which I find hard to understand, so I'm assuming you also think so.
This my attempt at explaining it.
You know how wNK3c5Z5 is a random generated string and thus useful for security, wNK3c5Z5 isn't secure, because it's a copy of the first one and thus not randomly generated.
The strings are identical and still one is secure and the other isn't. It's because of the context one is randomly generated, while the other isn't.
The law deals with these kind of differences all the time.
If I make an AI that exactly behaves and looks likes exactly like some human with a driving license the AI still can't be allowed to drive alone, because it isn't an adult citizen with a driving license and thus can't be held responsible for its deeds.
If I smash a soft wax stamp in a statue and use the stamp as a mall to make more of that statue I'm also violating copyright although I didn't have to make any of the movements the artist.

View this comment - View article - View full comments