Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

63% Positive

Analyzed from 700 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#infringement#book#copyright#jail#fine#don#read#illegal#training#copyrighted

Discussion (21 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

spate141•5 minutes ago
> a Meta spokesperson said, “AI is powering transformative innovations, productivity and creativity for individuals and companies, and courts have rightly found that training AI on copyrighted material can qualify as fair use. We will fight this lawsuit aggressively.”

> Authors have sued AI companies for copyright infringement before - and lost.

So, basically nothing will come out of this

ben_w•about 2 hours ago
A lot of people would be very pleased if this leads to Zuckerberg getting even the statutory minimum damages ($750?) on each infringement.

The previous infringement case with Anthropic said that while training an AI was transformative and not itself an infringement, pirating works for that purpose still was definitely infringement all by itself. The settlement was $1.5bn, so close to $3k for each of the 500k they pirated, so if Zuckerberg pirated "millions" (plural) it is quite plausible his settlement could be $6bn.

gloxkiqcza•about 1 hour ago
For context, his net worth is ~$220 billion.
28304283409234•about 1 hour ago
So... "move fast and steal things"?
MengerSponge•24 minutes ago
Always Has Been
josefritzishere•about 1 hour ago
I would rather Zuckerberg do 6 months in jail and probation than fine Meta.
jmclnx•33 minutes ago
I agree, time to start handing out real punishments, I thing 6 months is way to small.

If this was you or me, we would be in prison for decades and have a fine in the millions. Time for these people to feel consequences.

As someone said, they will probably settle for around 6 billion, that is the same as say a $100 fine for us.

karanbhangui•28 minutes ago
This comment could get its own DSM classification for how insane it is.

I'm all for strong justice, but you want to imprison an executive for decades for copyright violations?

rpdillon•12 minutes ago
I'm gonna have to go dig up the link, but isn't there a guy that Nintendo basically has on indentured servitude for the rest of his life?

Ah, found it:

>In April 2023, a 54-year-old programmer named Gary Bowser was released from prison having served 14 months of a 40-month sentence. Good behaviour reduced time behind bars, but now his options are limited. For a while he was crashing on a friend’s couch in Toronto. The weekly physical therapy sessions, which he needs to ease chronic pain, were costing hundreds of dollars every week, and he didn’t have a job. And soon, he would need to start sending cheques to Nintendo. Bowser owes the makers of Super Mario $14.5m (£11.5m), and he’s probably going to spend the rest of his life paying it back.

I'm not even a tiny bit supportive, but there is precedent.

https://www.theguardian.com/games/2024/feb/01/the-man-who-ow...

surgical_fire•2 minutes ago
I would prefer a harsher punishment, but I would begrudgingly accept throwing him in jail for decades.

I always heard that criminals should be thrown in jail, it's time we started doing it to the real criminals.

AlotOfReading•17 minutes ago
The non-strawman way to interpret the parent comment is that they want them to be treated the same as normal copyright violators. Jail is a common result of (criminal) copyright prosecution, with 44% of convicted offenders being imprisoned, averaging 25 months [0].

Now, I personally find the idea of imprisoning people for copyright offenses horrific, but I don't think it's remotely insane that someone else might come to that conclusion, given that we broadly accept it as a society.

[0] https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-pu...

jacques_chester•11 minutes ago
There aren't enough things an executive can go to jail for.

Fines don't do anything to deter bad behavior. Either:

* The company pays

* They pay and the company mysteriously increases next year's comp / grants a "loan" / etc

* D&O insurer pays

In all three cases the money comes out of the shareholders' hides. It provides zero personal deterrence. The payoff matrix, as seen by a sociopath, makes it rational to always defect against the common good.

The only punishment that can really focus attention is physical imprisonment in a facility they can't choose.

SOX did this for financial reporting and gee shucks it turned out executives can follow the law after all!

ginko•16 minutes ago
Is this controversial? Executives should be held liable, certainly moreso than just regular people sharing files.
SrslyJosh•25 minutes ago
Rules for thee but not for me.
lenerdenator•15 minutes ago
The behavior will continue until a consequence is imposed.
qarl•about 1 hour ago
I know people really hate AI training on their work - but is it really any different than a human reading it?

I know there's a complaint that AI can verbatim repeat that work. But so can human savants. No one is suing human savants for reading their books.

Producing copyrighted material, of course. Training on copyrighted material... I just don't see it.

EDIT: Making a perfectly valid point, but it's unpopular, so down I go.

nancyminusone•39 minutes ago
No one is asking human savants about what they read 1 million times per day.

Suppose they did, and some guy was filling stadiums regularly to hear him recite an entire audio book. That would probably get the attention of someone's lawyers.

qarl•37 minutes ago
I don't see your point. The problem is producing the copyrighted work, not processing it beforehand.

If it's illegal for AIs it should be illegal for humans, too. Is that really what you're arguing? It should be illegal for savants to read books?

SahAssar•28 minutes ago
I don't think anyone is arguing that the consumption is illegal. It's the reproduction that is illegal.

Read a book, that's fine. Write a book, that's fine. Read a book and then write a book that is 99.9% the same as the book that you read and sell it for profit without a license from the original author, that's infringement.