- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Every time I read an article about Facebook, I hate them a little more.
Meta argued that Strike 3 Holdings failed to show that Meta actually intended to use Strike 3 Holdings’ videos to train its AI models and that Meta, the company, was actually responsible for downloading the videos, as opposed to rogue employees downloading porn on company time from company IP addresses.
I think they protest too much.
And it’s extra scummy to blame corporate behavior on scapegoat employees.
“Yes our IP was responsible for torrenting 229TB of your 4K HDR porn, but it was actually this employee, Josh, who was behind it”
Love watching big porn fight big tech
how big 😳
Where’s the part where meta actually get punished for insulting the judicial system with a defence that is clearly an insulting fabrication
Ohhh, for video AI, not like when they copy news articles to keep people from leaving their site.
Surprisingly I’m with Meta on this one. Training is transformative use, and anything legally published is fair game. Doing math about library books is not a substitute for any particular work. Archive.org doesn’t need opt-in permission from every website. Video sites mad about keeping the files they sent you can fuck off. Basically - any argument against this requires making copyright even worse. Let’s don’t.
In this case they’re surely training against these examples. Like, if you want video models to not generate porn… how do you expect it to know what porn is?
Archive.org is a genuine public benefit organisation similar to a library and in some places recognised as such. Meta is making money out of this, they have to pay up same as everyone else.
Ad-hoc appeals, not principled application of how things actually work. Visiting a video hosting site anonymously, and being sent a video, is not “piracy.” Even training on Disney DVDs is transformative and so falls under fair use. No significant portion of a vast original corpus is recreated verbatim - in this case, ideally none of the corpus appears. The goal is to produce nothing like these videos.
Or if this is for classifiers instead of generators, nothing appears, because Meta’s not publishing anything. They’re looking at porn to make a program that goes ‘yep, that’s porn,’ to remove any hosted porn.
So it’s not a competing work, it doesn’t substantially reproduce the original work, it’s not even the same medium, and if anything it’s protecting the commercial value of the original work.
When you buy a video tape you also agree to a license that says you can’t use it in your video rental store. Most things licensed today will describe permissible use and prohibit other uses. No matter how much AI jargon is thrown at the issue, this is the current legal system.
Blacked.com is allowed not sell cake to that gay couple. They’re also allowed not license their porn to Meta.
Nope, first sale doctrine. Buying commercial tapes for a rental store is explicitly legal no matter what it says on the box.
Shrinkwrap and EULAs are the same damn thing and should never have been entertained as enforceable.
There is no license required because it’s fair use. Copyright is not an obstacle. Again: not verbatim, not competing, not detrimental. Doing math about video is protected for the same reason parody is protected.
When you’re appealing to conservative decisions that were just Calvinball to promote bigotry, reconsider your politics.
Your profile looks like a wild mix of human comments and AI paragraphs
I’ve never used an LLM to write anything. Y’all genuinely do not know what it looks like, but you are cocksure you see it when you don’t like something, and you insist you don’t like something when you think you see it.
That is why I said “looks like”. Because I wasn’t “cocksure” of anything except you’d be quick to get aggressive and make direct accusations about my character.
