Hacker News Reader

Comment by jonkho | Hacker News Reader

> You have to acquire the source material legally. You can be in violation of copyright for copying music you didn’t buy.

This is incorrect. As another poster mentioned, it is not illegal to read a stolen book. It is only illegal to steal the book.

Secondly the source material is acquired legally since it is open to consumption on the open internet.

Thirdly model does not contain “latent copies of the source material”. By using a simple test (currently legal standard) that if I showed you the node weights and counts of the network no person even trained in the art can identify it to a specific piece of work. Therefore it is at best a derivative, reasonably distinct.

View on HN

> By using a simple test (currently legal standard) that if I showed you the node weights

Nope, this is strawman and continuing to demonstrate a misunderstanding of Copyright Law. There is no such legal standard, where did you get that? If the network can reproduce a work, then it does in fact contain a latent copy. Arguing that you can’t see it by inspecting node weights is straw man. You cannot argue that you’re not copying music if you use a new compression algorithm and then suggest it’s distinct and derivative because nobody can read the raw compressed data. That’s not how Copyright Law works. If you can approximately re-perform someone else’s work, you’re in violation. This is true even if you have to run a black-box program to produce the output.

> no person even trained in the art can identify it to a specific piece of work

Ironically, you’re actually admitting that even AI researchers can’t prove the network won’t reproduce someone’s work.

The rest you seem to now be looking for a snarky gotcha, which if you don’t want to have a discussion, then I’m uninterested in discussing further. I made clear above and in a sibling comment that remixes are gray area, and this question is complicated. That said, even if AI people do acquire source material legally, they are in fact copying it and distributing it, and that part alone can potentially violate US Copyright Law. This isn’t even up for debate, so I don’t know why you’re attempting to suggest otherwise. The lawsuits mentioned in the article were brought on evidence that networks violated copyrights of specific existing works, and lots of people have found specific examples of violations.

My claim has always been that

1) the creating of the model is does not violate copyright. Claiming otherwise means running same algorithm in meatspace would violate copyright laws, which implies thoughts violates laws which is absurd.

2) distribution of the model does not violate copyright laws because the models themselves do not contain latent copies of the work. The model itself is not the work nor a recognizable copy of it nor can it be reconstituted back to the work. It is a tool more analogous to photoshop where the tool can be used to reproduce copyrighted work, yes, by the end user (where I believe the responsibility lies). But the tool itself is not copyrighted work. Microsoft word can be used to generate copyrighted books if I’m correct. Or I can hire smarter tool: a human writer to produce copyrighted works. Is the writer-for-hire illegal? Or his employability is illegal? Of course not. I believe the law will eventually take the position that AI model is a tool.

Creating of the model does violate copyright if the model you create can reproduce someone else’s work. Your logic is faulty. Running the algorithm isn’t what causes the problem, so there is no implication that thought is the problem: this point is still a straw man argument. If it seems absurd, then shouldn’t you re-check your assumptions?

> nor can it be reconstituted back to the work

This is false. It has already happened multiple times that networks reproduced copyrighted material.

How is creating the model in my brain not illegal (as in my thoughts are not illegal) yet if it’s in silicon it would be illegal? Please give a well reasoned answer. This is not a strawman no matter how many times you insist on using that label.

Secondly you seem to be conflating the “tool itself” to “what the tool can do” to be strongly equivalent. I.e if the tool has the capability to violate laws, then the existence and distribution of the tool itself also violates said law. (Not so)

Distributing a model created using your brain is illegal, if the model violates copyright law. (Just like copying stuff without using neural networks in meat-space was already illegal.) If you create a program that reproduces copyrighted work, and distribute the program, then the distribution is illegal. That was the same answer I gave at the top. The brain vs silicon silliness is a strawman and has been all along because it doesn’t matter how your program was created, building and running it is not the illegal part under copyright law, distributing it is (and/or using material that you haven’t obtained legally).

> if the tool has the capability to violate laws, then the existence and distribution of the tool itself violates said law.

That’s right if you remove the word “existence”. Distribution of a NN model that violates copyright by reproducing copyrighted works is illegal. That part has been my point in this thread, it seems like you understand now and we agree.

It’s “existence” is not illegal under US Copyright Law unless you didn’t have the legal right to use the training material, and in that case it’s illegal to use the material whether you used a computer or your brain, it doesn’t matter how you created the neural network (or even whether you created a neural network), the violation there isn’t the act of creating the network, it’s the act of stealing and using material you don’t have permission to use.

This whole discussion would be a lot less frustrating for you if instead of making assumptions and logic arguments about brains and computers, you took some time to read the copyright legal code. https://www.copyright.gov/

If you understand that the model is a tool, and that as a tool it can be used to generate activity that can violate laws and be used for other perfectly legal activities, then as a broad principle the distribution of said tool is not a violation of said laws.

Cars, phones, guns, knives (practically anything) can be used to generate activities that break the law. They are perfectly legal to distribute. The onus on the legality of the activity lies with the end user.

While it’s true that knives and guns have both legal and illegal uses, it’s another straw man in this context, irrelevant to both neural networks and copyright law. In the case of neural networks, you’re distributing the copied material along with the tool, in the form of network weights, thus breaking the law by distribution whenever the network can reproduce significant portions of any of its individual training samples, or whenever you didn’t have legal permission to use the source training material.

> If you understand that the model is a tool, and that as a tool it can be used to generate activity that can violate laws and be used for other perfectly legal activities, then as a broad principle the distribution of said tool is not a violation of said laws

That statement is incorrect, the logic is flawed. Just because a tool has both legal and illegal uses does not necessarily have any bearing whatsoever on whether the tool’s distribution is legal. Tools that are illegal to distribute can have legal uses, and that does not make them legal to distribute.

> That statement is incorrect, the logic is flawed. Just because a tool has both legal and illegal uses does not necessarily have any bearing whatsoever on whether the tool’s distribution is legal. Tools that are illegal to distribute can have legal uses, and that does not make them legal to distribute.

Making statements and assuming the truth without reason nor evidence nor examples to back it up. Logical fallacy of begging the question. You have also not reasoned how freely available information is “illegal” to read/index/store amongst other things.

Not here to win you over. The audience can see how weak your position is. My last response here.

What are you talking about? What I said there wasn’t an assumption, it’s a fact about our laws. Murdering someone with a gun and breaking copyright law distributing copyrighted material are covered by two completely separate and independent laws. Breaking or not breaking one of the laws does not imply anything about other laws. Your statement of “broad principle” is the assumption here that claimed that not breaking one implied you were not breaking the other, which is completely and utterly false. You really really should read up on copyright law before asserting things, and maybe the laws surrounding knives and guns too if you want to use them as examples. Your comments have repeatedly and consistently demonstrated a lack of understanding of the laws we’re discussing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com