Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    293 points rntn | 20 comments | | HN request time: 1.995s | source | bottom
    Show context
    ankit219 ◴[] No.44608660[source]
    Not just Meta, 40 EU companies urged EU to postpone roll out of the ai act by two years due to it's unclear nature. This code of practice is voluntary and goes beyond what is in the act itself. EU published it in a way to say that there would be less scrutiny if you voluntarily sign up for this code of practice. Meta would anyway face scrutiny on all ends, so does not seem to a plausible case to sign something voluntary.

    One of the key aspects of the act is how a model provider is responsible if the downstream partners misuse it in any way. For open source, it's a very hard requirement[1].

    > GPAI model providers need to establish reasonable copyright measures to mitigate the risk that a downstream system or application into which a model is integrated generates copyright-infringing outputs, including through avoiding overfitting of their GPAI model. Where a GPAI model is provided to another entity, providers are encouraged to make the conclusion or validity of the contractual provision of the model dependent upon a promise of that entity to take appropriate measures to avoid the repeated generation of output that is identical or recognisably similar to protected works.

    [1] https://www.lw.com/en/insights/2024/11/european-commission-r...

    replies(7): >>44610592 #>>44610641 #>>44610669 #>>44611112 #>>44612330 #>>44613357 #>>44617228 #
    1. m3sta ◴[] No.44612330[source]
    The quoted text makes sense when you understand that the EU provides a carveout for training on copyright protected works without a license. It's quite an elegant balance they've suggested despite the challenges it fails to avoid.
    replies(1): >>44613883 #
    2. Oras ◴[] No.44613883[source]
    Is that true? How can they decide to wipe out the intellectual property for an individual or entity? It’s not theirs to give it away.
    replies(3): >>44613962 #>>44614016 #>>44616465 #
    3. elsjaako ◴[] No.44613962[source]
    Copyright is not a god given right. It's an economic incentive created by government to make desired behavior (writing an publishing books) profitable.
    replies(2): >>44614270 #>>44616163 #
    4. arccy ◴[] No.44614016[source]
    "intellectual property" only exists because society collectively allows it to. it's not some inviolable law of nature. society (or the government that represents them) can revoke it or give it away.
    replies(2): >>44614158 #>>44614667 #
    5. impossiblefork ◴[] No.44614158{3}[source]
    Yes, but that's also true of all other things that society enforces-- basically the ownership of anything you can't carry with you.
    replies(1): >>44614787 #
    6. kriops ◴[] No.44614270{3}[source]
    Yes it is. In every sense of the phrase, except the literal.
    replies(2): >>44614330 #>>44614811 #
    7. Zafira ◴[] No.44614330{4}[source]
    A lot of cultures have not historically considered artists’ rights to be a thing and have had it essentially imposed on them as a requirement to participate in global trade.
    replies(2): >>44614469 #>>44617093 #
    8. kolinko ◴[] No.44614469{5}[source]
    Even in Europe copyright was protected only for the last 250 years, and over the last 100 years it’s been constantly updated to take into consideration new technologies.
    replies(1): >>44615397 #
    9. figassis ◴[] No.44614667{3}[source]
    You're alive because society collective allows you to.
    replies(1): >>44614973 #
    10. CaptainFever ◴[] No.44614787{4}[source]
    Yes, that is why (most?) anarchists consider property that one is not occupying and using to be fiction, held up by the state. I believe this includes intellectual property as well.
    11. ◴[] No.44614811{4}[source]
    12. lioeters ◴[] No.44614973{4}[source]
    A person being alive is not at all similar to the concept of intellectual property existing. The former is a natural phenomenon, the latter is a social construct.
    13. pyman ◴[] No.44615397{6}[source]
    The only real mistake the EU made was not regulating Facebook when it mattered. That site caused pain and damage to entire generations. Now it's too late. All they can do is try to stop Meta and the rest of the lunatics from stealing every book, song and photo ever created, just to train models that could leave half the population without a job.

    Meta, OpenAI, Nvidia, Microsoft and Google don't care about people. They care about control: controlling influence, knowledge and universal income. That's the endgame.

    Just like in the US, the EU has brilliant people working on regulations. The difference is, they're not always working for the same interests.

    The world is asking for US big tech companies to be regulated more now than ever.

    14. klabb3 ◴[] No.44616163{3}[source]
    Yes, 100%. And that’s why throwing copyright selectively in the bin now when there’s an ongoing massive transfer of wealth from creators to mega corps, is so surprising. It’s almost as if governments were only protecting economic interests of creators when the creators were powerful (eg movie studios), going after individuals for piracy and DRM circumvention. Now that the mega corps are the ones pirating at a scale they get a free pass through a loophole designed for individuals (fair use).

    Anyway, the show must go on so were unlikely to see any reversal of this. It’s a big experiment and not necessarily anything that will benefit even the model providers themselves in the medium term. It’s clear that the ”free for all” policy on grabbing whatever data you can get is already having chilling effects. From artists and authors not publishing their works publicly, to locking down of open web with anti-scraping. Were basically entering an era of adversarial data management, with incentives to exploit others for data while protecting the data you have from others accessing it.

    replies(4): >>44616552 #>>44616611 #>>44616704 #>>44617293 #
    15. victorbjorklund ◴[] No.44616465[source]
    Copyright is literally granted by the gov.
    16. ramses0 ◴[] No.44616552{4}[source]
    You've put into words what I've been internally struggling to voice. Information (on the web) is a gas, it expands once it escapes.

    In limited, closed systems, it may not escape, but all it takes is one bad (or hacked) actor and the privacy of it is gone.

    In a way, we used to be "protected" because it was "too big" to process, store, or access "everything".

    Now, especially with an economic incentive to vacuum literally all digital information, and many works being "digital first" (even a word processor vs a typewriter, or a PDF that is sent to a printer instead of lithograph metal plates)... is this the information Armageddon?

    17. isaacremuant ◴[] No.44616611{4}[source]
    Governments always protect the interests of their powerful friends and donors over the people they allegedly represent.

    They've just mastered the art of lying to gullible idiots or complicit psycophants.

    It's not new to anyone who pays and kind of attention.

    18. vidarh ◴[] No.44616704{4}[source]
    Why? Copyright is 1) presented as being there to protect the interests of the general public, not creators, 2) Statute of Anne, the birth of modern copyright law, protected printers - that is "big businesss" over creators anyway, so even that has largely always been a fiction.

    But it is also increasingly dubious that the public gets a good deal out of copyright law anyway.

    > From artists and authors not publishing their works publicly

    The vast majority of creators have never been able to get remotely close to make a living from their creative work, and instead often when factoring in time lose money hand over fist trying to get their works noticed.

    19. wavemode ◴[] No.44617093{5}[source]
    To be fair, "copy"right has only been needed for as long as it's been possible to copy things. In the grand scheme of human history, that technology is relatively new.
    20. daedrdev ◴[] No.44617293{4}[source]
    copyright is the backbone of modern media empires. It both allows small creators and massive corporations to seek rent on works, but since the works are under copyright for a century its quite nice to corporations