#Tag
Mark Zuckerberg got caught with his pants down!
In a way...
Meta wanted its AI so helpful, even porn script writers could get assistance:
This must be the reason why the quality of porn dialogs has been declining!
I was also already wondering why every porn title starts to be something fucked up about incest 😂
Time to DeMeta?
https://www.reddit.com/r/DeMeta/
#Meta #Facebook #MetaAI #Tech #it #News #Porn #LLM #AI #Artificialintelligence #Torrent #Corporation #IP #copyright
It looks like the judge and lawyers for the class Action and Anthropic wanted an expedient solution. Some expect the class action lawyers to take 25% of the 1.5bn USD compensation.
I can pursue my own case for my work that was downloaded, but they know that's unrealistic ☹️
From the FAQ https://www.anthropiccopyrightsettlement.com/faq
"Even though Anthropic downloaded approximately 7 million files from LibGen and PiLiMi, many of those files were duplicates of works, or unregistered works, or were empty, corrupted, or incomplete files.
About 40% of the files Anthropic downloaded (approximately 3 million) were duplicates. Duplicate copies are not eligible to be in the Works List.
Likewise, works not validly registered with the U.S. Copyright Office are not eligible to be in the Works List. Many of the works Anthropic downloaded were not registered. For example, non-English works have very low registration rates. Of the approximately 4 million unique works that Anthropic downloaded, around 2.5 million were written in languages other than English. Most of those 2.5 million non-English works were unregistered. In addition, many of the 1.5 million unique English works were not registered. And even among registered works, many failed to satisfy the date criteria in the Class definition, because registration occurred more than five years after publication or after Anthropic downloaded such works.
Finally, many works failed validation tests. For example, the Works List does not include files that were empty, corrupted, or incomplete."
Denmark seems to be pursuing the idea of protecting people from "AI" deep fakes by addressing people's image as part of copyright law. [1]
I applaud the idea of doing something about this, and this is a better approach than none at all, but it's not quite how I would pursue it.
For one thing, there are a number of places where people are innocently captured in images that this will create complications for. And for another, I don't think it's powerful enough to address the real problem.
The "MOO" community (MOO is MUD, Object-Oriented, and MUD is Multiple-User Dungeon, and Dungeon was one of the first text-based interactive fiction games, also called Zork), this came up a long time ago. Ironically, since MOO is entirely text, images were not involved. But there was still the issue of appropriating people's view of themselves for ill purposes, and this was richly discussed.
MOO, which had its greatest popularity in the 1990's, before Second Life overshadowed it, functioned as a kind of textual sketch of things to come. It was a coarse level of detail because its technical layer doesn't allow for super-elaborate detailing, but that forced the social aspect to be the focus rather than the technology. Modern systems purport to capture reality, but they often get so side-tracked on making things photo-real visceral experiences that they give short shrift to the full complexity of human social interaction. So they're still catching up to some of the social issues MOO explored decades ago.
In Julian Dibbell's fascinating book "My Tiny Life: Crime and Passion in a Virtual World", which you can and should buy if you can afford to, but which the author arranged to be freely downloadable as a PDF for those who could not afford it [2], the focus is on "A Rape In Cyberspace", he explores some of these issues. Originally published in The Village Voice and later adapted for a book, this story is, in the author's words, "a True Account of the Case of the Infamous Mr. Bungle, and of the Author's Journey, in Consequence Thereof, to the Heart of a Half-Real World Called LambdaMOO".
This story will not tell you how to understand what Denmark is doing, but I think it informs my way of thinking about this issue.
At its core, both situations--the issue in cyberspace and the modern issues in the real world--are not "infringements" (in the way copyright would talk about them) but "violations" in the way a person's sense of self matters.
Some people will point to rape as a matter of physical violation, but just as others are quick to say it's not a crime of sex, it's a crime of violence, I would similarly say it's a crime of violation, of taking control of a person's sense of self. And that's what's in common with these other matters, like grabbing someone's image.
We don't presently have a standard for this, and like many matters of human endeavor, there is extraordinary nuance. Fair use, one might say. Certainly parody is one place where people don't have complete say. The sitting President wants to go after critics for disparaging his good name, for example, and ordinarily the disparaging of someone's good name might be seen as a violation, but in certain realms of public discourse, especially for public figures, we allow and insist on it.
This is partly true, too, because even underlying the issue of violation is the issue of power. The law is really at its core protecting those powerless to protect themselves. So, for example, while it might be a violation to appropriate the good work of an actor who's just struggling to eat, selling their image royalty-free, appropriating the name of a politician who can with the stroke of a pen cut the food supply of millions is not exactly exerting power over them, certainly not unconditionally dominating power.
So we should be careful in our understanding of good law to understand that it seeks not a bright line of pain to itself become a weapon, but rather just an ability to tip power balances back toward the middle, making the world an even battle among people who are born into different levels of power and who cannot therefore fairly be expected to solve their own problems.
I've swept through many issues here, but I have decades of thought underlying my reaction to Denmark's idea, informed by the lucky accident that I was there at the time LambdaMOO sketched the future.
I sometimes note in conversations with people for whom a topic is new and hypothetical that they will say "I wonder what would happen if..." and I reply in the past tense saying "Oh, this is what happened." Because I don't have to speculate. I saw it. It mightn't happen reliably that way again. Many possibilities were in play. But even those were tangibly close to my experience. I have rich, detailed thought because I lived at least one version of it. Just wanted to share that.
[1] https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/07/deepfake-legislation-denmark-digital-id/
[2] https://epdf.pub/my-tiny-life-crime-and-passion-in-a-virtual-world.html
#AI #IP #Law #Crime #Copyright #DeepFake #DeepFakes #violation #rape
Denmark seems to be pursuing the idea of protecting people from "AI" deep fakes by addressing people's image as part of copyright law. [1]
I applaud the idea of doing something about this, and this is a better approach than none at all, but it's not quite how I would pursue it.
For one thing, there are a number of places where people are innocently captured in images that this will create complications for. And for another, I don't think it's powerful enough to address the real problem.
The "MOO" community (MOO is MUD, Object-Oriented, and MUD is Multiple-User Dungeon, and Dungeon was one of the first text-based interactive fiction games, also called Zork), this came up a long time ago. Ironically, since MOO is entirely text, images were not involved. But there was still the issue of appropriating people's view of themselves for ill purposes, and this was richly discussed.
MOO, which had its greatest popularity in the 1990's, before Second Life overshadowed it, functioned as a kind of textual sketch of things to come. It was a coarse level of detail because its technical layer doesn't allow for super-elaborate detailing, but that forced the social aspect to be the focus rather than the technology. Modern systems purport to capture reality, but they often get so side-tracked on making things photo-real visceral experiences that they give short shrift to the full complexity of human social interaction. So they're still catching up to some of the social issues MOO explored decades ago.
In Julian Dibbell's fascinating book "My Tiny Life: Crime and Passion in a Virtual World", which you can and should buy if you can afford to, but which the author arranged to be freely downloadable as a PDF for those who could not afford it [2], the focus is on "A Rape In Cyberspace", he explores some of these issues. Originally published in The Village Voice and later adapted for a book, this story is, in the author's words, "a True Account of the Case of the Infamous Mr. Bungle, and of the Author's Journey, in Consequence Thereof, to the Heart of a Half-Real World Called LambdaMOO".
This story will not tell you how to understand what Denmark is doing, but I think it informs my way of thinking about this issue.
At its core, both situations--the issue in cyberspace and the modern issues in the real world--are not "infringements" (in the way copyright would talk about them) but "violations" in the way a person's sense of self matters.
Some people will point to rape as a matter of physical violation, but just as others are quick to say it's not a crime of sex, it's a crime of violence, I would similarly say it's a crime of violation, of taking control of a person's sense of self. And that's what's in common with these other matters, like grabbing someone's image.
We don't presently have a standard for this, and like many matters of human endeavor, there is extraordinary nuance. Fair use, one might say. Certainly parody is one place where people don't have complete say. The sitting President wants to go after critics for disparaging his good name, for example, and ordinarily the disparaging of someone's good name might be seen as a violation, but in certain realms of public discourse, especially for public figures, we allow and insist on it.
This is partly true, too, because even underlying the issue of violation is the issue of power. The law is really at its core protecting those powerless to protect themselves. So, for example, while it might be a violation to appropriate the good work of an actor who's just struggling to eat, selling their image royalty-free, appropriating the name of a politician who can with the stroke of a pen cut the food supply of millions is not exactly exerting power over them, certainly not unconditionally dominating power.
So we should be careful in our understanding of good law to understand that it seeks not a bright line of pain to itself become a weapon, but rather just an ability to tip power balances back toward the middle, making the world an even battle among people who are born into different levels of power and who cannot therefore fairly be expected to solve their own problems.
I've swept through many issues here, but I have decades of thought underlying my reaction to Denmark's idea, informed by the lucky accident that I was there at the time LambdaMOO sketched the future.
I sometimes note in conversations with people for whom a topic is new and hypothetical that they will say "I wonder what would happen if..." and I reply in the past tense saying "Oh, this is what happened." Because I don't have to speculate. I saw it. It mightn't happen reliably that way again. Many possibilities were in play. But even those were tangibly close to my experience. I have rich, detailed thought because I lived at least one version of it. Just wanted to share that.
[1] https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/07/deepfake-legislation-denmark-digital-id/
[2] https://epdf.pub/my-tiny-life-crime-and-passion-in-a-virtual-world.html
#AI #IP #Law #Crime #Copyright #DeepFake #DeepFakes #violation #rape
It looks like the judge and lawyers for the class Action and Anthropic wanted an expedient solution. Some expect the class action lawyers to take 25% of the 1.5bn USD compensation.
I can pursue my own case for my work that was downloaded, but they know that's unrealistic ☹️
From the FAQ https://www.anthropiccopyrightsettlement.com/faq
"Even though Anthropic downloaded approximately 7 million files from LibGen and PiLiMi, many of those files were duplicates of works, or unregistered works, or were empty, corrupted, or incomplete files.
About 40% of the files Anthropic downloaded (approximately 3 million) were duplicates. Duplicate copies are not eligible to be in the Works List.
Likewise, works not validly registered with the U.S. Copyright Office are not eligible to be in the Works List. Many of the works Anthropic downloaded were not registered. For example, non-English works have very low registration rates. Of the approximately 4 million unique works that Anthropic downloaded, around 2.5 million were written in languages other than English. Most of those 2.5 million non-English works were unregistered. In addition, many of the 1.5 million unique English works were not registered. And even among registered works, many failed to satisfy the date criteria in the Class definition, because registration occurred more than five years after publication or after Anthropic downloaded such works.
Finally, many works failed validation tests. For example, the Works List does not include files that were empty, corrupted, or incomplete."
Plagiarism, Copyright, and AI | The University of Chicago Law Review https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/online-archive/plagiarism-copyright-and-ai#heading-2 (excellent description of the differences between copyright and plagiarism) #AI #copyright
Plagiarism, Copyright, and AI | The University of Chicago Law Review https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/online-archive/plagiarism-copyright-and-ai#heading-2 (excellent description of the differences between copyright and plagiarism) #AI #copyright
Hey, Anthropic owes me $9000! They illegally used at least 3 of my books on LibGen to create Claude. Now they're paying a $1.5 billion settlement, at $3000 per book. See if *your* books are on the list:
https://www.anthropiccopyrightsettlement.com/
If so, you have until March 23, 2026 to file a claim. The above website lets you file a claim, but this one explains everything more clearly:
Actually I exaggerated: the payment will be split between authors and publishers - so the settlement is making me do some work my publisher should be doing for me. My coauthors and I will just get half, $4500. One of these books has 2 coauthors, one has 3, and one is a book I edited, with essays by lots of authors. So $1000 is a more realistic estimate of what I get. Oh well.
Bizarrely, my most popular book, Gauge Fields, Knots and Gravity, is not on the list. But I guess it's not surprising:
"The settlement agreement discloses that approximately 500,000 titles out of the 7 million copies of books that Anthropic reportedly downloaded from LibGen and PiLiMi meet the definition required to be part of the class."
I don't know what that definition is, and why it excludes most of the books.
@johncarlosbaez To qualify, the downloaded works need to have been registered with the US Copyright Office before being downloaded.
Unsurprisingly, many authors outside the US did not register their US copyright as registration is not needed in other countries (or their publisher could/should have registered the copyright but didn't). It costs about 50 USD per work.
Copyright exists as soon as the work is created, but US registration is needed for US statutory damages. Without registration, there is a higher bar to receive statutory damages. (AFAIK, only the US requires copyright registration like this).
As said elsewhere, this case is about Anthropic downloading from a shadow library -- training AI with copyrighted works appears to be fair use, so far.
US copyright history would make an interesting (but different) post.
(edited for clarity)
#copyright #Anthropic
'For the past five years, Kyle K. Courtney, who directs copyright and information policy for Harvard’s libraries, has fought to make e-books more accessible to public libraries across the United States.
Most e-books have digital rights management software that means, like print books, they can only be checked out by one person at a time. But unlike print books, which can sit on library shelves for decades, e-books are often sold on time-limited contracts — meaning public libraries must buy them again after several years or, in some cases, several months. The costs can add up quickly.
Courtney, a lawyer by trade, believes that the strict contract terms are “undermining every library’s mission across the United States.”
“We can’t own our books. We can’t preserve them. We can’t keep them. We can’t check them out without having to pay for the same book over and over and over,” Courtney said. “And that’s problematic for collection development, for access, for budget, for all sorts of things.”' https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/9/24/Library-eBook-Contracts/ #books #copyright #contract #libraries
'For the past five years, Kyle K. Courtney, who directs copyright and information policy for Harvard’s libraries, has fought to make e-books more accessible to public libraries across the United States.
Most e-books have digital rights management software that means, like print books, they can only be checked out by one person at a time. But unlike print books, which can sit on library shelves for decades, e-books are often sold on time-limited contracts — meaning public libraries must buy them again after several years or, in some cases, several months. The costs can add up quickly.
Courtney, a lawyer by trade, believes that the strict contract terms are “undermining every library’s mission across the United States.”
“We can’t own our books. We can’t preserve them. We can’t keep them. We can’t check them out without having to pay for the same book over and over and over,” Courtney said. “And that’s problematic for collection development, for access, for budget, for all sorts of things.”' https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/9/24/Library-eBook-Contracts/ #books #copyright #contract #libraries
Someone wants to delete a photo I took in Palestine, graffiti that says more about life there than words ever could. It’s one of my favorites because it mirrors what I saw soldiers doing to people every day.
At this point in 2025, I don’t have the energy for copyright debates. Especially not about removing a photo I took myself, showing a political reality that should be seen, not hidden.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Banksy_in_Bethlehem.jpg
#Banky #Palestine #copyright #Wikipedia #Commons
Someone wants to delete a photo I took in Palestine, graffiti that says more about life there than words ever could. It’s one of my favorites because it mirrors what I saw soldiers doing to people every day.
At this point in 2025, I don’t have the energy for copyright debates. Especially not about removing a photo I took myself, showing a political reality that should be seen, not hidden.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Banksy_in_Bethlehem.jpg
#Banky #Palestine #copyright #Wikipedia #Commons
This could just as easily be the US government...
This could just as easily be the US government...
A right to copy
Excellent post from @beep on the real world of #copyright and #AI.
A right to copy
Excellent post from @beep on the real world of #copyright and #AI.
A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate
