• 4 Posts
  • 310 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: December 18th, 2023

help-circle




  • The “battle” is the result of copyright people trying to use open source people for their ends.

    In the past, for software, the focus was completely on the terms of the license. If you look at OSI’s new definition, you will find no mention of that, despite the fact that common licenses in the AI world are not in line with traditional standards. The big focus is data, because that is what copyright people care about. AI trainers are supposed to provide extensive documentation on training data. That’s exactly the same demand that the copyright lobby managed to get into the european AI Act. They will use that to sue people for piracy.

    Of course, what the copyright people really want is free money. They’re spreading the myth that training data is like source code and training like compiling. That may seem like a harmless, flawed analogy. But the implication is that the people who work and pay to do open source AI have actually done nothing except piracy. If they can convince judges or politicians who don’t understand the implications then this may cause a lot of damage.








  • If the same user can generate the same input, it will result in the same hash.

    Yes, if. I don’t know if you can guarantee that. It’s all fun and games as long as you’re doing English. In other languages, you get characters that can be encoded in more than 1 way. User at home has a localized keyboard with a dedicated key for such a character. User travels across the border and has a different language keyboard and uses a different way to create the character. Euro problems.

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

    Byte length of the character is irrelevant as long as you’re not doing something ridiculous like intentionally parsing your input in binary and blithely assuming that every character must be 8 bits in length.

    There is always some son-of-a-bitch who doesn’t get the word.

    • John F. Kennedy



  • can exercising one’s agency over their body really be considered “rent-seeking”?

    First of all, I am not impressed by this kind of emotional manipulation. You are talking about exercising agency, power, over other people’s bodies. If someone, whether a VFX artist or a hobbyist, would use a likeness without a license, you want them stopped. At the end of the day that means that LEOs will use physical force. You may not think of something like copyright being enforced through physical force, but that is what happens if someone steadfastly refuses to pay fines or damages.

    Enforcing intellectual property, like a likeness right, means ultimately exercising power over other people’s bodies. The body whose likeness it is, may not be involved at all. In the typical case of a Hollywood star, they would be completely unaware of what the enforcers are doing.

    Rent-seeking is an economics term. Rent-seeking is as rent-seeking does. You may feel that society - the common people -have to suffer for “justice”, like people were expected to suffer for the diving rights of kings. But you can’t expect people not to remark the negative consequences. Well, I guess if I were living in such a monarchy, subject to the divine right of a king, I would be quite circumspect. I wouldn’t want to be tortured or imprisoned, after all. And yet it moves.

    Usually, rent-seeking involves property, and yet the right to own property is internationally recognized as a human right.

    to alienate workers from their labor and exploit them.

    We’re probably not on the same page regarding terminology. This sounds like a Karl Marx idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx’s_theory_of_alienation

    Obviously that’s not what you mean. I guess I’m just surprised to see these hints of leftism mixed in with conservative economics.

    SAG-AFTRA

    …is fundamentally a conservative organization. It’s no coincidence that Ronald Reagan was president of SAG, before becoming president of the US. They will favor the in-group over the out-group and the top over everyone at the bottom. That’s what the doctrines you are repeating are designed for.



  • I have the distinct impression that a number of people would object to the purpose of re-hosting their content as part of a commercial service, especially one run by Google.

    Anyway, now no one has to worry about Google helping people bypass their robots.txt or IP-blocks or whatever counter-measures they take. And Google doesn’t have to worry about being sued. Next stop: The Wayback Machine.


  • Are you really conflating people who make their living based upon their acting skills and likeness with landlords?

    No. I am talking about rent-seeking.

    Rent-seeking is the act of growing one’s existing wealth by manipulating the social or political environment without creating new wealth.[1] Rent-seeking activities have negative effects on the rest of society. They result in reduced economic efficiency through misallocation of resources, stifled competition, reduced wealth creation, lost government revenue, heightened income inequality,[2][3] risk of growing corruption and cronyism, decreased public trust in institutions, and potential national decline.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

    You could argue to what a degree landlords or Elon Musk are engaged in rent-seeking. Likeness rights are a clear example, though.

    Imagine in the near future. Some famous person licenses their likeness for a show, game, movie. Maybe the producer hires an unknown actor that is then digitally altered into the famous person, like a more advanced version of Gollum. Or maybe the VFX artists can do it on their own. These guys work. The famous person does nothing. They might be dead, while the rights-owners still collect license fees.


  • Knowing people who are not famous but are SAG-AFTRA actors, I’m going to have to disagree very much on that.

    How do likeness rights benefit non-famous people?

    Turning likeness into an intellectual property implies the right to sell it. Apparently you want to argue for likeness, so I don’t see why you would use such clauses as an argument.

    That’s a poor and fallacious argument there.

    It’s not an argument, as you have recognized. I hoped it would make you think.

    You know that not everyone in Hollywood is part of SAG-AFTRA, right? Have you ever wondered what happened to them during the strike? I guess they just have to fend for themselves. If the “union” doesn’t care about those guys, do you think the leadership cares about the small members?

    Actors are a conservative lot. At the bottom, you have the “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” and at the top… Well, you know. It’s not common on lemmy to cheer for such a system.