archontes

I agree that interested parties are trying to steer the ship there. I just don't see the legal arguments that will get them there.

Given the fact that images are transmitted to a person in a manner that doesn't violate copyright (and even if they are, the transmitter, not receiver is guilty of infringement), training an AI is not something that copyright law limits.

The AI weights that result are about the farthest thing from a derivative work, as the weights as a separate object, don't seem to contain the slightest remnant of the original work.

I am also not a lawyer; I have some background and training in IP law as it pertains to engineering.

As far as I can tell, the image you describe and your example sentence are closer than you might think to each other. Mickey Mouse is a copyrighted character, and Disney could certainly claim infringement for both. Whether you have a fair use claim is down to the tenets of fair use, and whether they sue you is down to their estimation of how likely it is it'd be profitable for them to do so.

So what is fair use? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107

Put simply, you have to argue about it in court and decide on a case by case basis, but the factors are:

The nature of use, such as for profit vs. non-profit.

The nature of the copyrighted work. Your art might be considere literary criticism. How central to that message is Mickey Mouse?

The amount and substantiality of the copyrighted work appearing in your work. Mickey Mouse is the sole feature, so large.

How likely is it that your Mickey Mouse creation will serve as a substitute for people consuming normal Mickey Mouse content?

If you put it on the internet, someone can read it.

You try writing a law that corporate America can't corrupt.

I'm a fan of decriminalization rather than legalization, mainly because I believe that people should be able to engage with it, but I don't want companies marketing it. Marketing in the US is too effective, and I don't want to load that gun with anything that makes people less well, because it'll find a way to maximize consumption.

I'm not sure you're being intellectually honest.

You think that a model that's capable of being prodded into producing an infringing output in addition to all the other non-infringing outputs it could produce is no different than a compression algorithm?

And that's all well and good, but that code that asserts to be protected by GPL still has to stand the abstraction-filtration-comparison test.

The plain fact is that you can claim copyright on plenty of stuff that isn't copyrightable.

Consider AI model weights at all: they're the result of an automatic process and contain no human expression; almost by definition, model weights shouldn't be copyrightable, but people are still releasing "open source" models with supposed licenses.

Part of my point is that fair use doesn't apply.

Training a model doesn't involve reproducing a copyrighted work, preparing a derivative work, distributing that work, or performing that work.

Fair use isn't required because none of the exclusive rights afforded by copyright apply.

Maybe you should update your view with 17 USC 106.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106

It's an extreme stretch to say that the model weights are a derivative work of the training data given the legal definition of "derivative work".

The comment chain you are replying to includes a request to not train an AI on one's code.

I agree it's certainly possible for AI to produce infringing output.

Nevertheless, people don't have the right to enforce a limitation on training.

When are people going to get that this isn't a right folks have?

If your code is readable, the public can learn from it.

Copyright doesn't extend to function.

Not in copyright. The work speaks for itself, and the function of code is not a copyrightable aspect.

You might not get your ass kicked. Copyright doesn't protect function, to the point where the court will assess the degree to which the style of the code can be separated from the function. In the even that they aren't separable, the code is not copyrightable.

https://www.wardandsmith.com/articles/supreme-court-announce...

https://easlerlaw.com/software-computer-code-copyrighted#:~:...

When you write something on the internet, you automatically obtain a copyright on it.

Copyright provides the exclusive rights to reproduce, adapt, publish, perform, and display that thing.

Training an AI model isn't any of those things.

If you transmit a thing to me, and I have those bits on my computer, you don't get to determine that I can't train an AI on it, unless we signed an agreement further restricting my use prior to you transmitting it to me.

Now. My AI might produce a work that is sufficiently similar to your work that it is considered a reproduction or adaptation, but that doesn't mean that the training was an infringement.

Also, courts have repeatedly held that webscraping is entirely legal.

If you don't want folks (or their computers) learning from things you create, don't put them on the internet.

NOW for the hilarious follow-on: Copyright is not granted for the results of an automatic process. Training an AI is an automatic process, and it's plausible that attempting to claim copyright on model weights would fail if it were litigated fully. It's more likely they'd qualify for trade secret protection.

Per-app vpn settings when?

You cannot copyright gameplay.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/intellectual_property_law....

"We have held that 'persuasion or mild coercion' and 'pleas based on need, sympathy, or friendship' constitute sufficient inducement to permit jury consideration of the entrapment issue." - United States vs. Nations

Need, sympathy or friendship. I think it's trivial to allow that finding a wounded animal would constitute a sympathetic plea.

It's the predisposition that gets him here. Given that he advertises the service, he's obviously predisposed to the action.

"The four charges against Wingenroth stemmed from a December sting operation by the Pennsylvania Game Commission in which an officer called Wingenroth pretending to be a hunter who had wounded a deer and needed help recovering it."

"Entrapment is a complete defense to a criminal charge, on the theory that 'Government agents may not originate a criminal design, implant in an innocent person's mind the disposition to commit a criminal act, and then induce commission of the crime so that the Government may prosecute.'" - Justice.gov

The only way this doesn't look like entrapment to me is if the agent called the man and said, "Hey I wounded a deer, can you help?" and the man replied, "I'll use my drone!" Even then, I seriously wonder how this doesn't stray into the territory of implanting the disposition to commit said crime.

Are you aware of any precedent that "enabling" copyright infringement is tantamount to copyright infringement?

Copyright obviously protects against the retransmittal of the copyrighted work. If Yuzu hasn't done that, it isn't guilty of copyright infringement. Instead, Nintendo is arguing that if Yuzu didn't exist, fewer people would have committed copyright infringement. That in itself is not a copyright claim.

Fair use is an exception to copyright. The issue here is that it's not fair use, because copyright simply does not apply. Copyright explicitly does not, has never, and will never protect style.

It's less hyperbolic than you might imagine. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. On a long timeline, I believe it is possible to follow a chain of CO2 increasing the temperature until we get uncontrolled CH4 emission that will then increase temperatures until we get into a positive feedback loop of increasing water vapor.

I have read that this is likely how Venus became a hot dry ball.

We just need to price reclamation into the cost of energy. If a process that has reduced emissions is more efficient, it'll be used, if it's not, it won't, and if the product isn't worth the cost of its combined production and reclamation, it won't be purchased.

Do be careful, though. Some other folks here are saying, correctly, that this glosses over the "direct" or "indirect" nature of a semiconductor. I only very slightly alluded to this when mentioning the relationship between energy and momentum.

Trying to make a long story short, it can be the case that in order to transition to another energy level, an electron also has to exchange momentum with something, usually the lattice in the form of quantized vibrations. Photons carry energy but almost no momentum, so an indirect semiconductor (one that requires both energy and momentum exchange for a transition to the conduction band) is usually an abysmal choice for optoelectronics.

Bachelor's in engineering physics (condensed matter experimental)/EE specializing in semiconductors here. The explanation starting at 4:00 is very accurate.

When he talks about the electrons "feeling" the neighboring atoms, he's talking specifically about a result that follows from the materials being crystalline, that is, having regular ordered structure. The regular structure gives rise to a periodic potential. You plug that periodic potential into the Schrodinger equation and apply continuity conditions and translational symmetry to the wavefunction. Computing the solutions to the Schrodinger equation with those conditions reveals that there are allowed and disallowed energy levels, and also reveals the relationship between energy and momentum in the crystal lattice. You can step through this by reading the wikipedia page on the Kronig-Penney Model. This depends on the periodicity, which obviously can change depending on direction in a crystal.

His explanation, and the result that "the" band gap is a single number, isn't dishonest because when we grow semiconductor devices, we grow them such that the crystal is oriented such that current flows in the desired direction, so that simple result holds true.

Even his portrayal of the bands leaning down as potential/voltage is applied mirrors how potential change is shown in diagrams of semiconductor devices, see Streetman and Banerjee - Solid State Electronic Devices.

Does anyone have a lead on that awesome clip that makes contact with the pins and breaks them out to headers?

You can buy some land out in Texas for like $1000 per acre.

It's kind of interesting you're saying the same thing as each other.

If money were in the hands of people who want houses built in cities instead of on beaches, there'd be more houses in cities and fewer on beaches.

Do you think that folks will install it on site without cutting it?

It may not be as aberrant as MeatCanyon, but I would say that Felix Colgrave is defining his own genre enough to be considered weird.

https://www.youtube.com/@FelixColgrave