127 karma · joined June 30, 2020
If you believe the government would only use that data for just purposes then you probably wouldn't then believe that there is a 1A issue. But if you think the government would use it to identify persons at a protest and then take adverse actions against them on the basis of their presence alone (which to be clear, seems distinguished from the immediate instance) you would probably think there is a 1A issue.
So I think that this is more so an artefact of the parameters than an outcome of some mechanism of law.
Seriously? Is this argument in all earnestly "No profession has been more contemptuous therefore we should keep on keeping on"? Should we as an industry not bother to try and improve our ethics? Why don't we all just make munitions for a living and wash our hands of guilt because "the industry was always like this".
Seems a bit ironic against the backdrop of <https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=tptacek>:
> All comments Copyright © 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2018, 2023, 2031 Thomas H. Ptacek, All Rights Reserved.
(although perhaps this is tongue-in-cheek given the last year)
ETA: I looked up the docket [0] and in fact, this was the second appeal (See ECF 64). There was also an appeal on a prior MTD, hence the extreme delay.
[0]: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6081165/palin-v-the-new...
ETA: which is of course mentioned on the thread root. But RECAP users would be paying, in that case.
Do you think autonomous computer algorithms (to the extent we could suppose they exist, for the sake of argument) should have a statutory right to copyright?
My best reading of it is "can 'they' say that corporations can author works?" and excepting works for hire, no, "they" can't.
That's non-obvious to me. Even if the prompt is extremely long and precise, if it is somehow purely functional, it seems possible for it to not be (although in practice, I agree that most prompts could be).
Following this logic a lossily compressed image is completely unprotected by copyright.
> In any case, saying "if I put in some input and get copyrighted output" is tantamount to copyright violations; if I use a generative tool and generate copyrighted info is it the tools fault?
Do you not think this is obviously fact-specific? If I gzip a bunch of (copyrighted) files, then obviously that doesn't somehow make distributing them not infringement. If I now replace the tool = ungzip + input = files combination with tool = (ungzip and files) and input = (selection mechanism over files) do you think that in the second case distributing the tool is not infringement? I don't mean to say that any of these is precisely the same as the LLM case, but I think your argument is clearly overbroad.
> OpenAI at most broke an EULA or some technicality on copyright w.r.t. local ephemeral copies. What's the damage to the NYT though?
One obvious damage claim (if you are skeptical of market harm wrt newspaper/oneline sub sales) is that they were entitled to the FMV of licensing costs of the articles, which is not so hard to value: OpenAI has entered such agreements with AP and others. [0]
[0]: https://apnews.com/article/openai-chatgpt-associated-press-a...
I would be a bit careful about trying to liken motivation for something like an EO to a law though; many members of congress voted to pass the exact language in the final bill, and they might not all have agreed with _why_. So I would put to you that the text itself is the primary thing one should consider, especially more in the legislative case than the executive one.
Sure, although they do discuss TikTok's challenge to the motivation ("Petitioners further argue that the Act is underinclusive as to the Government’s data protection concern, raising doubts as to whether the Government is actually pursuing that interest"). I just don't think the quote you had stands for what you were saying.
> At what point in the ruling did they wonder what motivated the effective ban?
Above is at page 15. Also, I think you're probably looking for the paragraph starting with "For the reasons we have explained, requiring divestiture for the purpose of preventing a foreign adversary from accessing the sensitive data of 170 million U.S. TikTok users is not 'a subtle means of exercising a content preference.' Turner I, 512 U. S., at 645." (at 12).
I saw elsewhere you likened this to the Trump muslim ban. I don't think that comparison is apt. The First Amendment issues there were not decided by the 9th circuit in the first one (“we reserve consideration of [First Amendment religious discrimination] claims until the merits of this appeal have been fully briefed.” State v. Trump, 847 F.3d 1151, 1168 (9th Cir. 2017)) the stay there was issued due to likelihood of success on the merits wrt due process issues; I don't know offhand about the second one; and the third attempt was upheld.
The opinion actually assumes without deciding that First Amendment scrutiny applies, so I don't think it "absolutely" does. (But yes, it probably does and Sotomayor and Gorsuch would decide as much)
This isn't true. At least with respect to "soundalike" see, e.g., Waits v. Frito-Lay 978 F.2d 1093 and Midler v. Ford Motor Co. 849 F.2d 460.
> I wonder if the community has grounds to sue any of these companies who are ditching the AGPL in favor of proprietary, source-available licenses, especially under “third-party beneficiary contract” legal theories, like @conservancy did in their suit against Vizio.
> If the source code originally used AGPL, isn’t it still contractually obligated to ensure those rights to its users, including any new source code added to it?
seems to indicate rather strongly that the original poster doesn't understand the AGPL terms, CLAs, or the nuances of contract litigation. At least OP recognises that at least enough to ask a question about it, but I don't think "random questions I thought up about reasonably well-settled law in Twitter thread form" makes a good post.
They could choose not to continue to distribute the code though (but good luck clawing back the GPL licenced copies).