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.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: LoudTechie

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.

Uh, yeah, and that makes it worth it how if there's no revenue associated? I was pointing out where the revenue seems to be coming from. You counter that not by pointing out that the stuff is expensive, which just makes the point that they better have some revenue coming in, but by pointing out an alternative source of revenue, and suggesting some reason they'd want that source instead rather than having both. (Except you shouldn't, because I'm right :tongue: )

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: LoudTechie

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).

Moving briefly from the technical/legal to the political/economic, it seems to me fairly clear that whatever can be proved and whether or not they are succeeding/will succeed, the intent of, say, Google in deploying AI is precisely to gain revenue by moving it from content creators to themselves, by making it unnecessary for people to go to the actual websites producing information. Where the eyeballs are is where the advertising revenue is, so if Google keep the eyeballs for themselves they keep the revenue as well. And there doesn't seem to be anything else in the wind that would make it worth all the expense of making the AI.

If discovery drags out examples of them planning this, it could become a significant issue, both in the actual court case itself and in the broader political environment with respect to whether governments decide to make laws and regulations just to stop corporations using AI from cannibalizing the broader web.

And one clear thing about copyright law and the rhetoric around it is, it is ultimately an instrumental set of laws. They exist as they are for the purpose of achieving policy goals, such as encouraging artistic production and enriching monopolistic corporations (some of those goals conflict). There are major and ongoing attempts to craft a morality around those laws, to encourage adherence to them, but if the laws change we will end up with attempts to craft morality around whatever laws we end up with. But 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. It was a concept eventually generated by the printing press and capitalism, presumably because with the printing press in a capitalist economy, you could make money printing things, and so there was a need to regulate things to make that process smoother for capitalists. So my point there is, the morality was built around the policy, not the other way around, and this will continue to be the way things work; we will end up with the policy that works (for the strongest political interests) and any moral issues will be adjusted to fit.

But AI are quite different things from printing presses; even the internet is quite different from printing presses. The strains on copyright law are increasing, and the possible policy and societal interests that could be served by different approaches are multiplying. It seems very likely that there will be things done to regulate the use of AI, that will probably have broader implications around copyright issues.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: CatKillerupdates are atomic.

I worry about fallout.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Penglingor the press in my country unironically suggesting this baby-toy [External Link] as a serious alternative to the likes of the Game Boy, Game Gear, and Atari Lynx.

What is that thing? It's hilarious! It's like a non-digital video game, what the heck?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Whatever happened to Vala? That always struck me as kind of a neat concept, assuming it worked.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: LachuWhen we own games? Even, when we bought CD/DVD, we do not own content of it. We only buy rights to use content of CD/DVD in way vendor allow us. Do you read ever license text, of any non-free game?

A lot of that stuff ain't legal. They can say what they want and hope it sticks, but in most countries courts won't back them up on quite a bit of it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: mattaraxia

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: mattaraxia

Quoting: Purple Library GuyWhat can I say? My empirical evidence, albeit limited, says different, and you haven't advanced anything except bad analogies to justify your position..

I'll just respond to this point because it's so easy to demonstrate how not true it is.

I literally have. I gave several real world examples in my very first comment, but you just quoted a single sentence and started rambling instead of responding to what I actually wrote.

Here, as a Linux gamer, here's details of a very real world example I already explicitly mentioned. Did you ever run Steam? Real world example:

https://www.pcworld.com/article/431317/scary-steam-for-linux-bug-erases-all-the-personal-files-on-your-pc.html [External Link]

If you think flatpak is too hard to be worth mitigating something like this, cool, but it's a very real world example of why you do have a need for it whether you realize it or not. If you can be bothered to read a whole article, you'll see that problem affected real humans with no, as you put it, movie style hacker attack required. And it's one of several examples from my very first comment you only quoted one sentence of. No app is immune to this sort of thing. Sandboxing technology is the best mitigation for such problems we have.

You can keep trying to be disagreeable all you want, but you clearly haven't actually read what I actually said. Instead, you keep trying to commit me to some position you've imagined, that I think you should run flatpak or snap today or something.

That's a real world example of something, but not of what you would need to establish. We know there are vulnerabilities. That says nothing about how often ordinary people's desktop computers are successfully attacked, let alone in ways that would matter to the ordinary person. Note: NOT servers, NOT computers belonging to large and/or wealthy organizations, and NOT via phishing or social engineering. Ordinary people's computers, hacked, in a way that does something that matters to the individual; how often does it happen? And, to get specific, how many of such cases would sandboxing apps have helped with? If you can't speak to that, you are not speaking to my point or to anything I have a reason to care about.

Far as I can tell, most of what happens to ordinary people is hackers go after some outfit that has a ton of passwords, steals their passwords from that place and messes up the individual without ever encountering their computer. Ain't a lot containerization or any other extra hardening is going to do about that. But it does show that security is important for servers and large organizations' computers.

Heh. Here's my bad analogy: We know orcas are capable of killing humans. It's obvious, you look at the mass, the teeth, the things they do predate upon, and a track record of occasionally snapping and killing a trainer at some Sea World place. But do they? Well, if you're not their prison guard, apparently not. The vulnerability to orca attack clearly exists, and yet there is no point in applying security measures against orca attack except in extremely specific situations. The only place where orca security experts are worth listening to is at places where orcas are in captivity. If orca security experts from those places were to try to apply their principles to whale watching tours, they would be doing the wrong thing.

You're just digging a hole man. I'm not interested in convincing you more, but come on, you know full well you said I'd only provided such and such, and it's just not true. You claiming that doesn't provide enough of an example, for a point I'm not even making you're just trying to commit me to, is meaningless.

I mean again, you clearly can't be bothered to read a whole article, but the example I gave doesn't require "hackers" at all.

You're vomiting up an insane amount of text at this point when you'd be better off just admitting you hadn't read the actual discussion you jumped into.

But really, it's OK, the world will move on without you. Are you still mad that Ubuntu disabled the root user ~20 years ago because it didn't affect you? Luckily, smarter people realized it was a good thing to do, and essentially all distros followed along.

You've once again spent a whole lot of time saying your arguments are wonderful and I am unworthy of you amazing security experts, but zero time making any arguments. I'm done.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: mattaraxia

Quoting: Purple Library GuyWhat can I say? My empirical evidence, albeit limited, says different, and you haven't advanced anything except bad analogies to justify your position..

I'll just respond to this point because it's so easy to demonstrate how not true it is.

I literally have. I gave several real world examples in my very first comment, but you just quoted a single sentence and started rambling instead of responding to what I actually wrote.

Here, as a Linux gamer, here's details of a very real world example I already explicitly mentioned. Did you ever run Steam? Real world example:

https://www.pcworld.com/article/431317/scary-steam-for-linux-bug-erases-all-the-personal-files-on-your-pc.html [External Link]

If you think flatpak is too hard to be worth mitigating something like this, cool, but it's a very real world example of why you do have a need for it whether you realize it or not. If you can be bothered to read a whole article, you'll see that problem affected real humans with no, as you put it, movie style hacker attack required. And it's one of several examples from my very first comment you only quoted one sentence of. No app is immune to this sort of thing. Sandboxing technology is the best mitigation for such problems we have.

You can keep trying to be disagreeable all you want, but you clearly haven't actually read what I actually said. Instead, you keep trying to commit me to some position you've imagined, that I think you should run flatpak or snap today or something.

That's a real world example of something, but not of what you would need to establish. We know there are vulnerabilities. That says nothing about how often ordinary people's desktop computers are successfully attacked, let alone in ways that would matter to the ordinary person. Note: NOT servers, NOT computers belonging to large and/or wealthy organizations, and NOT via phishing or social engineering. Ordinary people's computers, hacked, in a way that does something that matters to the individual; how often does it happen? And, to get specific, how many of such cases would sandboxing apps have helped with? If you can't speak to that, you are not speaking to my point or to anything I have a reason to care about.

Far as I can tell, most of what happens to ordinary people is hackers go after some outfit that has a ton of passwords, steals their passwords from that place and messes up the individual without ever encountering their computer. Ain't a lot containerization or any other extra hardening is going to do about that. But it does show that security is important for servers and large organizations' computers.

Heh. Here's my bad analogy: We know orcas are capable of killing humans. It's obvious, you look at the mass, the teeth, the things they do predate upon, and a track record of occasionally snapping and killing a trainer at some Sea World place. But do they? Well, if you're not their prison guard, apparently not. The vulnerability to orca attack clearly exists, and yet there is no point in applying security measures against orca attack except in extremely specific situations. The only place where orca security experts are worth listening to is at places where orcas are in captivity. If orca security experts from those places were to try to apply their principles to whale watching tours, they would be doing the wrong thing.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Villian

Quoting: Eike

Valve posted asking people to consider using the official Valve .deb package

Please, please, please, please not!
I'm reading nearly every thread in the Steam for Linux forum, and we hear problems from people having used the downloadable deb for over a decade now! People should use what their distribution made of it, adding their dependencies and such. I cannot believe Valve proposes to actually use that!

and if their distribution made is shit?

Then try using a good distro?

View this comment - View article - View full comments