5 ms·

I suspect their goal is to train a model for detecting adult material, so that they can block it, which isn't necessarily an amoral goal

overtone1000 12d ago
But would still be a copyright violation
- infinite_spin 12d ago
  I'm not a lawyer, but in my view copyright violations center around distribution, not necessarily the method by which a work is obtained e.g. if someone is reciting a poem they wrote in a public park, and I make a recording of that recitation, I have not violated their copyright in doing so, however I might violate their copyright by reconstructing that poem and then distributing it
  - irthomasthomas 12d ago
    Which is why torrenting is the dumbest way to do this, since every downloader is also an uploader. That is what gets torrenters locked up. It is possible to leach only, but its not the default mode, and if this guy was broadcasting his IP address, then he was seeding... distributing.
    - infinite_spin 12d ago
      You expose your IP address even when not seeding, and I don't know if this person was seeding these torrents
  - jpc0 12d ago
    As in all cases it depends on jurisdiction. For example where I am performers have a right to not be recorded so you may in fact not make such recording, you didn’t not necessarily violate copyright but you violated related rights. And likewise if you distribute any sort of copy of the recording you made you are violating at least one if not more copyrights.
    - infinite_spin 12d ago
      where I live, anything in public view is allowed to be filmed/recorded, which is how the news can record things on the street without getting a release from those that they filmed, and they certainly distribute those recordings
      - staticman2 11d ago
        If the news reporter said "Someone at a park played this 4 minute copyrighted song, and today's top story is just us showing you the recording" I'd bet that would be illegal where you live.
        infinite_spin 11d ago
        I remarked upon distribution in a comment above > however I might violate their copyright by reconstructing that poem and then distributing it My argument is that the recording itself is not a copyright violation, not that distributing such a recording couldn't be construed as one (however I disagree on principle with that being illegal as well, as it puts an undue burden on the exercise of free speech, which should include the ability to accurately and entirely recite what I had experienced in a public place).
cucumber3732842 12d ago
"Guys we can't sell a VR headset that doesn't do porn good, nobody will buy it" seems just as likely to me.
- infinite_spin 12d ago
  I don't follow your logic, VR headsets are fully capable of displaying 3D scenes. That's a solved problem.
- cindyllm 12d ago
  [dead]
_trampeltier 12d ago
Just never ever ask how they train the models for CSAM.
- infinite_spin 12d ago
  I'm not a fan of joking about those efforts. The people doing that work to catch predators and prevent their evil from reaching the general public are heroes.

overtone1000 12d ago

But would still be a copyright violation

infinite_spin 12d ago
I'm not a lawyer, but in my view copyright violations center around distribution, not necessarily the method by which a work is obtained e.g. if someone is reciting a poem they wrote in a public park, and I make a recording of that recitation, I have not violated their copyright in doing so, however I might violate their copyright by reconstructing that poem and then distributing it
- irthomasthomas 12d ago
  Which is why torrenting is the dumbest way to do this, since every downloader is also an uploader. That is what gets torrenters locked up. It is possible to leach only, but its not the default mode, and if this guy was broadcasting his IP address, then he was seeding... distributing.
  - infinite_spin 12d ago
    You expose your IP address even when not seeding, and I don't know if this person was seeding these torrents
- jpc0 12d ago
  As in all cases it depends on jurisdiction. For example where I am performers have a right to not be recorded so you may in fact not make such recording, you didn’t not necessarily violate copyright but you violated related rights. And likewise if you distribute any sort of copy of the recording you made you are violating at least one if not more copyrights.
  - infinite_spin 12d ago
    where I live, anything in public view is allowed to be filmed/recorded, which is how the news can record things on the street without getting a release from those that they filmed, and they certainly distribute those recordings
    - staticman2 11d ago
      If the news reporter said "Someone at a park played this 4 minute copyrighted song, and today's top story is just us showing you the recording" I'd bet that would be illegal where you live.
      - infinite_spin 11d ago
        I remarked upon distribution in a comment above > however I might violate their copyright by reconstructing that poem and then distributing it My argument is that the recording itself is not a copyright violation, not that distributing such a recording couldn't be construed as one (however I disagree on principle with that being illegal as well, as it puts an undue burden on the exercise of free speech, which should include the ability to accurately and entirely recite what I had experienced in a public place).

cucumber3732842 12d ago

"Guys we can't sell a VR headset that doesn't do porn good, nobody will buy it" seems just as likely to me.

infinite_spin 12d ago
I don't follow your logic, VR headsets are fully capable of displaying 3D scenes. That's a solved problem.
cindyllm 12d ago
[dead]

_trampeltier 12d ago

Just never ever ask how they train the models for CSAM.

infinite_spin 12d ago
I'm not a fan of joking about those efforts. The people doing that work to catch predators and prevent their evil from reaching the general public are heroes.