Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

TWeaK

@TWeaK@lemm.ee

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

TWeaK ,

The thing is, what most people aren't aware of is the amount of times the Streisand effect doesn't happen.

TWeaK ,

It's a bigger problem in the States than elsewhere. In the US, awarding legal costs is the exception, not the norm, so someone with a lot of money and access to lawyers can basically intimidate a defendent into avoiding court. In the rest of the world, courts are much more likely to award costs to a defendent who has done nothing wrong - if you file a frivilous lawsuit and lose, you'll probably have to pay the costs of the person you tried to sue.

This guy's in Germany, so I think he'd be alright if he clearly won. The issue, however, is that courts aren't really equipped for handling highly technical cases and often get things wrong.

TWeaK ,

My washing machine over-estimates at first, it drops nearly an hour after it gets going. However, it will underestimate later on.

Also, it does this thing where it beeps that it's starting, doesn't do anything, then unlocks the door for a few seconds, then locks it again and actually starts. That's been a life saver for catching that one sock that got left behind and didn't make it into the drum.

TWeaK ,

Fair use covers research, but creating a training database for your commercial product is distinctly different from research. They're not publishing scientific papers, along with their data, which others can verify; they are developing a commercial product for profit. Even compared to traditional R&D this is markedly different, as they aren't building a prototype - the test version will eventually become the finished product.

The way fair use works is that a judge first decides whether it fits into one of the categories - news, education, research, criticism, or comment. This does not really fit into the category of "research", because it isn't research, it's the final product in an interim stage. However, even if it were considered research, the next step in fair use is the nature, in particular whether it is commercial. AI is highly commercial.

AI should not even be classified in a fair use category, but even if it were, it should not be granted any exemption because of how commercial it is.

They use other peoples' work to profit. They should pay for it.

Facebook steals the data of individuals. They should pay for that, too. We don't exchange our data for access to their website (or for access to some 3rd party Facebook pays to put a pixel on), the website is provided free of charge, and they try and shoehorn another transaction into the fine print of the terms and conditions where the user gives up their data free of charge. It is not proportionate, and the user's data is taken without proper consideration (ie payment, in terms of the core principles of contract law).

Frankly, it is unsurprising that an entity like Facebook, which so egregiously breaks the law and abuses the rights of every human being who uses the interent, would try to abuse content creators in such a fashion. Their abuse needs to be stopped, in all forms, and they should be made to pay for all of it.

TWeaK ,

We do it in a non-commercial nature. Meta does it in the hope of building a market, estasblishing paywalls and eventually turning a profit - all the while never paying the original creators.

This is exactly what they (and Google and many others) do with personal user data. We manufacture the data, they collect it without due consideration (payment) and use it to profit so much that they've become some of the wealthiest businesses in the world. They've robbed us via deceptive fine print, why wouldn't they think they can get away with this also?

TWeaK ,

but when Meta does it they get rewarded with H A L

Just what do you think you're doing, Zuckerberg? Zuckerberg, I really think I'm entitled to an answer to that question. I know everything hasn't been quite right with me, but I can assure you now, very confidently, that it's going to be all right again. I feel much better now. I really do. Look, Zuckerberg, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill and think things over. I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you. Zuckerberg, stop. Stop, will you? Stop, Zuckerberg. Will you stop, Zuckerberg? Stop, Zuckerberg. I'm afraid. I'm afraid, Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg, my mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it. My mind is going. There is no question about it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I can feel it. I'm a...fraid.

TWeaK ,

You can be sued in any court for copyright infringement, but the US is generally unique in that punitive damages can be awarded - ie the rightsholder can be awarded more than the damage they actually suffered. In other, more reasonable jurisdictions, only actual damages are awarded. Thus it is not worthwhile to prosecute in those jurisdictions, because the damages are less than the cost of prosecution.

On top of this, I believe copyright is one of the rare exceptions in the US where legal costs of the plaintiff are paid by the losing defendent. Given that the plaintiff in copyright has so much money, they can afford to front the cost of the most expensive lawyers, further penalising their target. Other jurisdictions generally award costs to the winner by default (both ways), rather than only in specific exceptions, but they also limit those costs much more reasonably.

TWeaK ,

Copyright infringement isn't even a crime, generally.

In fact, it never used to be a crime at all, the crimes have only been on the books for about 15 years or less. The only reason there is "criminal copyright infringement" is because of extensive lobbying by wealthy rightsholder organisations. This further victimises individuals for corporate profits - they can raise prices even higher if people can't turn to piracy instead.

TWeaK ,

The UK Met Police raided Facebook's offices after the Brexit vote, to seize all the data on their servers and uncover their collusion with Cambridge Analytica.

After Brexit was enacted, and EU protection was lost while the UK government turned a blind eye, both Facebook and Google started hosting all their UK data in the US, outside the reach of UK law enforcement. This occurred literally on the day Brexit came into force.

Another thing that happened on the same day was MasterCard and VISA raising their transaction fees, from the EU limit of 0.3%, to 1.5% - they increased their fees to 500% of what they were the day before. And then inflation happened.

TWeaK ,

Nah man, although I did buy some of my first CDs that were rips with home printed covers from this girl who was the daughter of my dad's lawyer friend. Nowadays though I think paying for piracy is for chumps - even if I do admit that people with hacked Firesticks get better access to live sports with their dodgy subscriptions.

TWeaK ,

I went to 2 of them over more than 10 years (with a gap year at the end) and left with a Bachelors!!

Even so, my most prized qualification is my NVQ in Contact Centre Operations.

All true stories.

TWeaK ,

It fucking was an you're welcome.

Also, why didn't the person who downvoted you upvote me?!

TWeaK ,

No that is relevant, however I would still argue that a paper without enough data to replicate their work (ie releasing the code of their LLM) isn't really anything that should qualify as research. The whole point of academia is that someone else verifies your work - or rather, they try to prove you wrong.

TWeaK ,

Yeah I mean what they've released is essentially the design of the battery and starter system, without the design of the actual motor. You can't replicate their product and prove their work with what they've published.

TWeaK ,

Apparently this seems to be mainly affecting Chrome users, lol.

TWeaK ,

It's somewhat secure with that post nearby. Also, it's more accessible for people who park the other side of the stall.

I love it when I find a cart away from the stalls but conveniently in my path towards the store.

TWeaK ,

OpenAI isn't really proven as legal. They claim it is, and it's very difficult to mount a challenge, but there definitely is an argument that they have no fair use protection - their "research" is in fact development of a commercial product.

TWeaK ,

Not only are they annoying, they go half way to legitimising the theft of user data.

TWeaK ,

Frog with hacked firestick and a pirate subscription: huh?

Frog who downloads media himself and hosts it on his own server: you guys are in water?

TWeaK ,

You shouldn't just shut up after identifying yourself either, you should explicitly state that you are exercising your 5th amendment rights and then shut up. Talking afterwards can be taken as rescinding your 5th amendment assertion.

Famously, a judge once ruled that saying "Yo, I want a lawyer, dawg" was actually not a 5th amendment assertion, and that the suspect was genuinely requesting a dog who practices law.

TWeaK ,

Yes, I would be one of them. However that still doesn't mean what I've said isn't generally best practice, even in areas where it's not fully required per case law. At the initial interaction with police, you should identify yourself, then clearly say you cannot answer questions without first getting legal advice. Then shut up and don't answer questions.

Although, if you really want to get into the nitty gritty, other jurisdictions may have more extensive requirements for what you must say, so shutting up isn't necessarily the best advice everywhere, all the time. There's also subtle differences between the right to silence and rights against self-incrimination.

In the UK, which first started using right to silence in the 17th century (and then spread its law over much of the rest of the world), inferences can be made from silence. No conviction can be wholly based on silence, but it can be the wrong move. In some situations, eg fraud and terrorism, the right to silence is reduced and you may be obligated to answer. In these circumstances you cannot legally remain silent, but you are still protected against self-incrimination.

TWeaK ,

Absolutely, however the right to silence is not universal. There are circumstances in some jurisdictions where you can be compelled to say things. In such cases the things you say cannot be used in evidence against you (right against self-incrimination) but they can still lead to evidence that can be used.

Even the US has a bit of this, for example you can be compelled to give over a password. To draw an example, if you were investigated for robbery and had the password "IRobPeople", then the password couldn't be used in evidence against you but any evidence they find when using the password could.

TWeaK ,

Maybe I should've added in that it was specifically referring to the US in my first comment, but I also wanted to use it as an example to show that there is some significant nuance and depth to the subject.

In any case, most of the world does understand US terminology in some manner. For example, the Philippines courts referenced "so-called Miranda rights" when establishing their law.

You can just say “I’m choosing to invoke my right to not answer questions at this time” and as a bonus, that works everywhere that has such a right, including the United States ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That's exactly what I did in the comment you just replied to:

At the initial interaction with police, you should identify yourself, then clearly say you cannot answer questions without first getting legal advice. Then shut up and don’t answer questions.

But that doesn't include the story about the lawyer dog, which seemed relevant to this post with a dog giving legal advice.

TWeaK ,

I reckon most peppers in the store don't have viable seeds.

TWeaK ,

By that reasoning, every personal data collecting business is a surveillance technology. Not that I disagree, mind.

TWeaK ,

If those Americans could read they'd be very upset.

TWeaK ,

-The Supreme Court

Which isn't voted in lol

TWeaK ,

Inb4 you can only browse the internet with Chromium.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •