7 ms·

In Czech, Whisper usually transcribes music as "Titulky vytvořil JohnyX" ("subtitles made by JohnyX") for the same reason.

actionfromafar 1y ago
Haha, trained on torrented movies! :-D The MPA must be so proud.
- Incipient 1y ago
  It's absolutely insane that these companies can't be held liable for what is obvious piracy.
  - jdiff 1y ago
    That's the magic of money. Download your favorite artist's discography for personal use? If the MPAA had its way (and it occasionally has), torrenting that could bankrupt you. The AI industry - soaking up every bit of media available online for commercial purposes, often reproducing it nearly identically - has enough money and capital to influence things its way. And only its way, in case anyone was hoping this might change anything at all for the little guy.
    - 1718627440 1y ago
      The movie industry also has some money and lobbying power. Surely this is a way larger threat than any single torrenter could ever be?
      - jdiff 1y ago
        The fact that this is propping up the entire AI industry adds additional weight. When legislating or deciding court cases, some won't be willing to pop the cash cow, some will be worried about falling behind countries that don't enforce copyright evenly. IP owners are trying to go after the AI industry, with only mixed to poor success.
        verzali 1y ago
        Hard to justify that they can't afford to pay when they have multi-billion dollar valuations and are apparently paying hundreds of millions to get a single engineer.
        jdiff 1y ago
        Maybe. But we are talking about the whole of copyrighted creative works created and sold by humanity. That'll get expensive no matter who you are.
    - d1sxeyes 1y ago
      > Download your favorite artist's discography for personal use? If the MPAA had its way (and it occasionally has), torrenting that could bankrupt you. I don't think that there are any clear examples of cases where ONLY downloading has resulted in huge fines. All the big bankrupting level fines have been for both downloading and sharing. You mention that 'torrenting' could bankrupt you, and that is true, but the main reason for the huge fines are that you are taking part in distribution rather than just 'downloading for personal use'.
      - jdiff 1y ago
        Given the lack of sense in treating each peer as a lost sale for damages, I think we can safely say they're only interested in making examples out of people and would absolutely go after people for only downloading if the law permitted. Thankfully it's not, but maybe they lobby to make changes in that direction to try and curb future AI industry shenanigans.
      - 0points 1y ago
        > I don't think that there are any clear examples of cases where ONLY downloading has resulted in huge fines. They [1, and others] been hunting and fining downloaders for over a decade now, with the only "evidence" being IP addresses connected with the torrent [2]. 1: https://www.njordlaw.com/filesharing-and-downloading-films/questions-and-answers-regarding-illegal-file-sharing-and-download https://www.njordlaw.com/filesharing-and-downloading-films/q... 2: https://admin.ovpn.com/en/blog/online-integrity-new-threats-of-fines-for-swedish-pirates https://admin.ovpn.com/en/blog/online-integrity-new-threats-...
        d1sxeyes 1y ago
        Yes, but torrenting is not ONLY downloading, it's both. The articles you link are very clearly talking about 'Sharing' (from link 2: "File sharing consists of both download and upload of a file.").
        0points 1y ago
        Yes, thats lawyer speak to make clients/victims believe there is no distinction. Hint: there is a distinction.
    - anon191928 1y ago
      court judges agree to this
    - shadowgovt 1y ago
      It's more the magic of precedent. The fight about digitized media for personal (entertainment / informational) use were the early aughts. The precedents crafted then don't immediately translate to these cases (novel transformative work from protected materials), and the new precedents have to account for the fact that universities have been training via "piracy" for ages. (The magic of money factors in to the extent that they can afford the lawyers to remind the court that this isn't settled law yet).
  - boredhedgehog 1y ago
    It's an indication how few people consider license infringements as a matter of actual moral import. Those tend to evoke strong feelings.
  - ACCount36 1y ago
    It's the way it should be.
  - pavon 1y ago
    Anthropic is going to trial over pirating books for training. The judge was pretty clear that even if training is fair use, the training material must be obtained legally. These regurgitations combined with proof that a model is familiar with a work could be sufficient evidence to force discovery to determine if the work was pirated.
  - scotty79 1y ago
    What's insane is copyright. How come you can own intellectual property but not pay a property tax? The ecosystem would be much healthier if to get copyright protections you should declare value of your IP (that you are obligated to sell for if the buyer pops up) and pay tax on this for every year you hold the IP.
    - retsibsi 1y ago
      > if to get copyright protections you should declare value of your IP (that you are obligated to sell for if the buyer pops up) and pay tax on this for every year you hold the IP I think this would have some unpalatable consequences. Let's say an author is writing a modestly successful book series: it's not going to make them rich, but it's commercially viable and they care a lot about it for its own sake. Under this system, if the author declares a value commensurate with the (quite small) pure economic value of the IP, they have to live in fear of their right to continue working on their creation being abruptly taken away from them at any point. If they instead declare a value commensurate with the economic value + the extra value that it has to them personally, the resulting tax liability could easily tip the balance and destroy their ability to pursue their writing as a career.
      - Workaccount2 1y ago
        Perhaps the tax would start a decade after the first sale.
      - scotty79 1y ago
        You are always free to update the value before paying tax. If somebody is willing to pay more than it's worth to you they probably have an idea how to turn it into more economic value for the society. So the society should allow them to do that. For a price, of the tax. What I'm proposing is about the financial rights. Individual right, like the right to call yourself author of any given creation should be inalienable. There are always some cases on the edge. The question is if saving them is worth the cost of the major players running rampant.
      - immibis 1y ago
  - codedokode 1y ago
    This is corsairy, not piracy, do not be mistaken.

actionfromafar 1y ago

Haha, trained on torrented movies! :-D The MPA must be so proud.

Incipient 1y ago
It's absolutely insane that these companies can't be held liable for what is obvious piracy.
- jdiff 1y ago
  That's the magic of money. Download your favorite artist's discography for personal use? If the MPAA had its way (and it occasionally has), torrenting that could bankrupt you. The AI industry - soaking up every bit of media available online for commercial purposes, often reproducing it nearly identically - has enough money and capital to influence things its way. And only its way, in case anyone was hoping this might change anything at all for the little guy.
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    The movie industry also has some money and lobbying power. Surely this is a way larger threat than any single torrenter could ever be?
    - jdiff 1y ago
      The fact that this is propping up the entire AI industry adds additional weight. When legislating or deciding court cases, some won't be willing to pop the cash cow, some will be worried about falling behind countries that don't enforce copyright evenly. IP owners are trying to go after the AI industry, with only mixed to poor success.
      - verzali 1y ago
        Hard to justify that they can't afford to pay when they have multi-billion dollar valuations and are apparently paying hundreds of millions to get a single engineer.
        jdiff 1y ago
        Maybe. But we are talking about the whole of copyrighted creative works created and sold by humanity. That'll get expensive no matter who you are.
  - d1sxeyes 1y ago
    > Download your favorite artist's discography for personal use? If the MPAA had its way (and it occasionally has), torrenting that could bankrupt you. I don't think that there are any clear examples of cases where ONLY downloading has resulted in huge fines. All the big bankrupting level fines have been for both downloading and sharing. You mention that 'torrenting' could bankrupt you, and that is true, but the main reason for the huge fines are that you are taking part in distribution rather than just 'downloading for personal use'.
    - jdiff 1y ago
      Given the lack of sense in treating each peer as a lost sale for damages, I think we can safely say they're only interested in making examples out of people and would absolutely go after people for only downloading if the law permitted. Thankfully it's not, but maybe they lobby to make changes in that direction to try and curb future AI industry shenanigans.
    - 0points 1y ago
      > I don't think that there are any clear examples of cases where ONLY downloading has resulted in huge fines. They [1, and others] been hunting and fining downloaders for over a decade now, with the only "evidence" being IP addresses connected with the torrent [2]. 1: https://www.njordlaw.com/filesharing-and-downloading-films/questions-and-answers-regarding-illegal-file-sharing-and-download https://www.njordlaw.com/filesharing-and-downloading-films/q... 2: https://admin.ovpn.com/en/blog/online-integrity-new-threats-of-fines-for-swedish-pirates https://admin.ovpn.com/en/blog/online-integrity-new-threats-...
      - d1sxeyes 1y ago
        Yes, but torrenting is not ONLY downloading, it's both. The articles you link are very clearly talking about 'Sharing' (from link 2: "File sharing consists of both download and upload of a file.").
        0points 1y ago
        Yes, thats lawyer speak to make clients/victims believe there is no distinction. Hint: there is a distinction.
  - anon191928 1y ago
    court judges agree to this
  - shadowgovt 1y ago
    It's more the magic of precedent. The fight about digitized media for personal (entertainment / informational) use were the early aughts. The precedents crafted then don't immediately translate to these cases (novel transformative work from protected materials), and the new precedents have to account for the fact that universities have been training via "piracy" for ages. (The magic of money factors in to the extent that they can afford the lawyers to remind the court that this isn't settled law yet).
- boredhedgehog 1y ago
  It's an indication how few people consider license infringements as a matter of actual moral import. Those tend to evoke strong feelings.
- ACCount36 1y ago
  It's the way it should be.
- pavon 1y ago
  Anthropic is going to trial over pirating books for training. The judge was pretty clear that even if training is fair use, the training material must be obtained legally. These regurgitations combined with proof that a model is familiar with a work could be sufficient evidence to force discovery to determine if the work was pirated.
- scotty79 1y ago
  What's insane is copyright. How come you can own intellectual property but not pay a property tax? The ecosystem would be much healthier if to get copyright protections you should declare value of your IP (that you are obligated to sell for if the buyer pops up) and pay tax on this for every year you hold the IP.
  - retsibsi 1y ago
    > if to get copyright protections you should declare value of your IP (that you are obligated to sell for if the buyer pops up) and pay tax on this for every year you hold the IP I think this would have some unpalatable consequences. Let's say an author is writing a modestly successful book series: it's not going to make them rich, but it's commercially viable and they care a lot about it for its own sake. Under this system, if the author declares a value commensurate with the (quite small) pure economic value of the IP, they have to live in fear of their right to continue working on their creation being abruptly taken away from them at any point. If they instead declare a value commensurate with the economic value + the extra value that it has to them personally, the resulting tax liability could easily tip the balance and destroy their ability to pursue their writing as a career.
    - Workaccount2 1y ago
      Perhaps the tax would start a decade after the first sale.
    - scotty79 1y ago
      You are always free to update the value before paying tax. If somebody is willing to pay more than it's worth to you they probably have an idea how to turn it into more economic value for the society. So the society should allow them to do that. For a price, of the tax. What I'm proposing is about the financial rights. Individual right, like the right to call yourself author of any given creation should be inalienable. There are always some cases on the edge. The question is if saving them is worth the cost of the major players running rampant.
    - immibis 1y ago
- codedokode 1y ago
  This is corsairy, not piracy, do not be mistaken.