LocalLLaMA
Welcome to LocalLLaMA! Here we discuss running and developing machine learning models at home. Lets explore cutting edge open source neural network technology together.
Get support from the community! Ask questions, share prompts, discuss benchmarks, get hyped at the latest and greatest model releases! Enjoy talking about our awesome hobby.
As ambassadors of the self-hosting machine learning community, we strive to support each other and share our enthusiasm in a positive constructive way.
Rules:
Rule 1 - No harassment or personal character attacks of community members. I.E no namecalling, no generalizing entire groups of people that make up our community, no baseless personal insults.
Rule 2 - No comparing artificial intelligence/machine learning models to cryptocurrency. I.E no comparing the usefulness of models to that of NFTs, no comparing the resource usage required to train a model is anything close to maintaining a blockchain/ mining for crypto, no implying its just a fad/bubble that will leave people with nothing of value when it burst.
Rule 3 - No comparing artificial intelligence/machine learning to simple text prediction algorithms. I.E statements such as "llms are basically just simple text predictions like what your phone keyboard autocorrect uses, and they're still using the same algorithms since <over 10 years ago>.
Rule 4 - No implying that models are devoid of purpose or potential for enriching peoples lives.
view the rest of the comments
That's a good start.
The laws do apply to everyone equally, though few people are able to litigate for years against the copyright industry.
Your concern is obviously the use case. If the use case doesn't matter, then quotes and parody are illegal, as well as historical archiving and scientific analysis.
I guess you just want AI training to not be fair use. That raises the question of how this should work.
Maybe you think that different standards should be applied to Zuckerberg, after all. Your focus on him makes it seem a little like that.
Perhaps you simply have something more european in mind. Europe and in particular Germany do not have fair use. There is a short list of uses that do not require permission. That means that every time some new use becomes desirable, the law must be changes. This is obviously stifling for progress in science and culture. Think of HipHop with its use of samples. It's hard to imagine some artists successfully petitioning the government to legalize the practice before experimenting with it. You couldn't have developed a search engine that simply copies all web pages for indexing. Something like the Internet Archive, or the Wayback Machine, would be impossible. It would just be a few tech geeks against the copyright industry, including the media.
So, how should this be done?
Actually, no. Theft is prosecuted by the government; police and courts. Copyright infringement is generally a civil matter. Damages are paid but there is no criminal prosecution.
The government only cares for large-scale, industrial infringement, like EG operating a Netflix-like streaming service. Small scale infringement is not even criminal in the US. I believe, even in Europe, people who torrent movies or such are rarely criminally prosecuted.
Maybe you would like to see copyright infringement to be punished more harshly and enforced more strictly?
That's an interesting idea. It's not how we do anything else. You don't usually have to pay more for the same thing, depending on who you are or how much you use it. I expect, it would be quite devastating if that were the rule.
Should this policy idea apply only to copyright or generally? If only copyright, why?
Should there be exceptions for celebrities and such, or will they be able to demand licensing fees?
Then much public content can't be used, after all. The likes of Reddit, Facebook, or Discord will be able to charge licensing fees for their content, after all. It's very typically European. You rage against Meta's monopoly but you also call for laws to enforce and strengthen it. I think it's the echo of feudalism in the culture.
Well, there is a distinction between use and obtaining it. For stealing, the use doesn't matter. For later use, it does. That's also what licenses are concerned with.
Yes, that's obviously the wrong way round. Usually things should be allowed per default, unless they're specifically prohibited or handled by law. We got it the wrong way around, here. However, I don't think it's the other way around in the USA either. While Fair Use is a broad limitation/exemption, it's still concerned with specific exemptions. For example AI wouldn't be allowed by default unless it gets incorporated into law, but they're referring back to the already existing, specific exemption to do "transformative" work. Very much alike our exemptions. Just that it is way more broad.
Well, it is. In the United States, willful copyright infringement carries a maximum fine of $150,000 per instance. In Germany it seems to be prison sentence up to 3 years or a fine.
I think laws should either be enforced or abolished. The current situation is not healthy.
No, copyright should be toned down. Preferably for regular citizens as well and not just the industry.
You're wrong here. People do have to pay more if they license a picture to show to their 20 million customers or use it in an advertising campaign, than I do for putting it up in the hallway. Airbus pays like 100x the price for the same set of nuts and bolts than someone else. A kitchen appliance for industrial use costs like 3x the price of an end user kitchen appliance. Because it's more sturdy and made for 24/7 use. A DVD rental business pays more for a DVD than the average customer.
No exceptions, no licensing, no fees. This is strictly to avoid bad things like doxxing, ruining people's lives...
They already do. There's a big war going on in the internet. I've told you how my server was targeted by Alibaba and it nearly took down the database. All other people have implemented countermeasures as well. Try scraping Reddit or downloading 5 Youtube videos. It's a thing of the past, you'll get rate-limited and your downloads will quickly start to fail. Unless you pay. So it is defacto that way already and can barely get worse. And the rich can buy their way into things, the monopolists are already in, while I can't do anything any more. My IP addresses get rate-limited or blocked and my accounts banned for "suspicious activity". Which was me making use of my Fair Use rights or the German version of something like that. But I'm prevented from exercising my rights.
Well, I think taking authors' livelihood in favour of mega corporations is enforcing and strengthening their monopoly and the echo of feudalism. I'd be less concerned if it was some small research institute doing something for the public or progress. Or if a programming book author was making more than 100,000€ a year and they're "the monopoly". But it's the other way around. This application of Fair Use is in favour of the feudal lord companies and to the detriment of the average person. Also defacto I as a citizen get none of the Fair Use the big companies get, and that's just different rules for different people.