seg 18 mai 2026 às 11:51:41 (1779115901), [email protected] enviou: > André Batista <[email protected]> writes: > > sex 15 mai 2026 às 04:28:18 (1778830098), [email protected] enviou: > >> Hugo Buddelmeijer via "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System > >> distribution." <[email protected]> writes: > >> > >> > Every example of LLM's regurgitating copyrighted text starts with a > >> > prompt that is derived from that copyrighted text. > >> > > >> > Hugo > >> > >> This claim may be true at first sight, but copyright is about stealing > >> creativity and not just stealing code verbatim. I continue to believe > >> that we cannot ensure there will be no legal payment obligation to > >> authors guilds at odds with free software for commercial use. > >> > > > > I keep seeing people using the adversary's language to talk about copyright. > > From where I come from, stealing is a word related to taking something away > > from someone and GNU included it among the words to avoid when talking about > > copyright. When someone copies copyrighted works they are not taking > > anything > > away from copyright holders with or without license compliance. > > Whereas I agree with the GNU argument that "stealing" is an incorrect > turn of phrase when applied to copyright infringement, I do think it > makes sense to refer to plagiarism as "stealing", in line with "stolen > valor" and the like. >
Care to explain? As I see it, a plagiarist fails to increase some abstract, intangible value to those who are plagiarized. However it does not takes away whatever abstract intangible value the plagiarized already possesses. It also does not stop the plagiarized from being increased when they show others what happened. Someone massively plagiarized would somehow be honoured since so many others are parroting their ideas or works. If it's fame they are after, the only thing they need is to show precedence. Intellectual dishonesty and reference chaos, but stealing? > > Copyright was historicaly a means to control the freedom of press, of access > > to knowledge, not a means to enpower authors, creators nor of being an > > incentive to creativity. Loosing that perspective leads us to defend > > stances > > which are not conductive to a free software world. The goal of free > > software > > is to have a commons and user liberty by default, not to defend copyright > > holders' interests. > > Granting a few mega-corps the sole rights to scrape, store, use, etc all > copyrighted material and to sell derivative works does not trickle down, > nor is it a step towards the commons. We should not ally ourselves with > "AI"-megacorps but rather with the authors whose works are regurgitated > word-for-word by LLMs, just like we should stand with musicians against > the exploitative record companies, even in situations where the record > company is self-interestedly pushing to weaken copyright in specific > situations. > It certainly does not trickle down automagicaly, but since they are setting the example, it becomes a bit harder to defend their exceptionality as regards to what is or is not accepted on our day and time. The contradiction between the law as it was applied to Aaron Swartz and to Meta should be always brought to the forefront of any discussion on copyright not with the intention of bringing Zucker to Aaron's fate but with the intention of what happened to Aaron being recognized as an absolute injustice, a result of anachronistic legal models and privatization of knowledge. To be clear, I'm far from proposing an alliance with AI-megacorps. We need to make those enterprises public owned, subject to collective scrutiny and heavily regulated and overseen. What I'm opposing is to shooting ourselves in the foot by trying to favor copyright holders own interests in this dispute. Cheers!
