terop 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (4054) comment rss

  • On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use

    terop ( profile ), 11 Jun, 2025 @ 11:50am

    US copyright law recognizes the Berne Convention rules, but US copyright law is not based on the Berne Convention rules.
    Yeah, but you only have experience about berne rules since 1988, since usa was late in adopting the rules. We have experience with the rules for over 200 years, so our berne techniques are significantly more fine-tuned and we can find subtle details from them which are completely unheard in usa.

  • On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use

    terop ( profile ), 11 Jun, 2025 @ 11:19am

    it was indeed a legal danger zone if companies use AI code generators without lawyers’ reviews.
    today's news tidbit kinda explains why AI is dangerous. https://www.axios.com/2025/06/11/disney-nbcu-midjourney-copyright disney is suing AI company because copyrighted characters appear in the midjourney's output...

  • On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use

    terop ( profile ), 11 Jun, 2025 @ 06:26am

    The absurdity is that this entire argument is useless because it’s perfectly legal to torrent legal torrents, so therefore there wouldn’t be any “pirated material” displayed in order to run afoul of this entirely made-up false aspect of copyright law you just conjured.
    Good luck with that. The day you implement support for torrents, the users will demand that they can add their own protocol entry points to the system, so that their pirated file collections can be included to the system. Then you as an author can't see anything wrong in your software, but users are leeching and pirating material like crazy. When you finally figure out that user's only interest in your software is because it allows pirate data to be used, it's too late and RIAA/MPAA is just few weeks away to pass DCMA notice to your software, or if it's blatant enough violation, give you paperwork for a lawsuit. This is significant issue for copyrights. Pirates will find a way to insert their bullshit to software projects. Things like requiring software to be open source so that pirate can then modify it and disable all the protections against copyright infringements.

  • On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use

    terop ( profile ), 10 Jun, 2025 @ 10:06pm

    Except we’re discussing US copyright law. Your software doesn’t dictate US copyright law nor is it US case law relating to copyright.
    US copyright law is based on the berne convention rules, so if I solely rely on that ruleset, the same stuff should work also in US soil. If not, then USA legal system is violating their contractual responsibilities.

  • On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use

    terop ( profile ), 10 Jun, 2025 @ 10:01pm

    You didn’t even know the public domain existed until I pointed it out.
    You have a time machine to the 1980s? That's when I learned about public domain/free software/open source/shareware/freeware/proprietary/commercial etc licenses..

  • On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use

    terop ( profile ), 10 Jun, 2025 @ 09:57pm

    So either you’re saying only one person has ever used your software or else you’re not enforcing your copyrights. But the reality is, under the license you’ve chosen, they don’t have to ask for permission.
    Well, I have tried multiple different licensing systems, including proprietary, open source, free software, custom, creative commons, eat your own dogfood etc.. But the one person who asked for permission was doing it for solely commercial game software.

  • On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use

    terop ( profile ), 10 Jun, 2025 @ 04:05pm

    Which rule? For what I’ve seen in the Napster and Grokster cases, I didn’t remember there’s a rule saying the user interfaces must not display pirate materials.
    https://copyrightalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/AM-Records-v.-Napster.pdf """Napster provides technical support for the indexing and searching of MP3 files, as well as for its other functions, including a “chat room,” where users can meet to discuss music, and a directory where participating artists can provide information about their music.""" This "technical support for the indexing and searching mp3 files" explicitly points towards the user interface.

  • On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use

    terop ( profile ), 10 Jun, 2025 @ 02:00pm

    Torrenting is just a file transfer protocol. It’s not itself illegal.
    User interfaces are needed before your file transfer protocol is useful to anyone and their mother. And there are strict rules that the user interface must not display pirated material in its user interface. Popular user interfaces like web browsers are struggling to meet the strict requirements set by the law. Basically, how you can check this information is by checking lawsuit done by RIAA and copyright lobby against software vendors who provide user interfaces (things like napster)... The lawsuits always have things like "our trademarks are infringed when (napster) displays the name of the song in it's user interface"...

  • On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use

    terop ( profile ), 10 Jun, 2025 @ 01:13pm

    You’re conflating issues relating to paying employees hourly wages with copyright protections.
    Yes. Copyright is very much to do with two different aspects: 1) compensation 2) control of where and how the product is used

  • On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use

    terop ( profile ), 10 Jun, 2025 @ 01:00pm

    It’s entirely possible to create something useful and not be completely wrong about how US copyright law works.
    Have you noticed that this only works in the land of the free? 95% of the world's population doesn't work that way. The world long ago moved away from the usa-centric platform you're promoting, and looked other way. When you bow to the east, your ass points to the west. This is what you need to learn. The world isn't in your small pond.

  • On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use

    terop ( profile ), 10 Jun, 2025 @ 12:20pm

    Your own software isn’t proof of any of your claims.
    You're wrong. My software is like a town library. It contains the information gathered in the last decade, stores it for future use. The claims are fundamentally based on the stuff that has happened in last decade, and thus the software source code should have entries proving all the claims i make. We saw how big success sites like wikipedia has become, and our software source code is our version of the information storage. It is significant failure in your part that you still do not have access to our software module catalog. Its like rest of the world got youtube, but your internet is slow enough that you cannot access the videos. Its our history and contributions that are contained in our software and people who reject it, will lose the next chapter in our magnificient technology development. We are soon taking control of the world, and you will be left behind, poor and miserable, when you failed to innovate and embrace emerging technologies. You've seen a glimpse of our technological lead, but it seems to be so advanced that you instantly rejected it. This is why you'll be late, finding out the world changed under you when noone knew such changes are possible. so long, and thanks for all the fish in the sea...

  • On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use

    terop ( profile ), 10 Jun, 2025 @ 11:13am

    FOSS developers would be up to their ears in emails asking for permission and they’d never get around to formally approving each individual request.
    This is the biggest bullshit I've heard in a long time. We already declared "With enough eyeballs, Bugs are shallow" as bullshit simply because we received no emails about any problems in our software. In my whole life, I've received exactly one email asking for permission. So if people are asking for permission, its definitely not via email. Other permission requests (where I received magnificient $6) came via itch.io web pages. That's about it. I think the amount of requests is too low rather than too much. So I would say the number of people who are doing things properly and asking for permission is very small. Now you all will be bashing my product as not useful and I should die horrible death simply because passing money downstream normally works as a permission request and getting money from the society is declared necessary. But creating copyrighted works is not the way to go. Maybe you have better idea how to fulfill the requirements, since copyrighted works are not working?

  • On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use

    terop ( profile ), 10 Jun, 2025 @ 10:21am

    I’m beginning to think your problem in life is not copyright, but that you may be the dumbest fucking idiot ever to visit this site.
    Yeah, that's why I have to create these copyrighted works and receive no compensation for my efforts. Some would call it dumb to repeatedly do the same failure of creating a product when previous one didn't make me richer than Bill Gates. But compensation issues aside, I think it benefits the society if people are spending their time creating something useful, instead of spray-painting the neighbour's garage or government buildings. If I was real dumb, I would do damage to the environment. But no, I'd rather create software that looks cool and would be useful if someone would take the time and actually use it.

  • On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use

    terop ( profile ), 10 Jun, 2025 @ 10:11am

    Not all AI training is illegal, clearly or otherwise. Not all torrenting is illegal.
    If you give this BS to the courts, they will laugh you out from the courtroom. I bet you can't even download the damn torrent client without violating copyrights.

  • On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use

    terop ( profile ), 10 Jun, 2025 @ 02:24am

    But that citation does reference a law, or specifically an update to the 1976 Copyright Act that was made in 1998, which makes it hardly “new.”
    So the year number is the only bit of information you managed to find from the case law references? Shouldn't you be examining the "temporary" keyword/the actual limits of what browsers are allowed to do under these cases? Basically important things you should check are the limits of the decision, i.e. scraping probably is outside of the scope, while browser is able to download the material, the browser is not allowed to give the downloaded material to the user. Browsers obviously display the web page to user, but the files stay locked inside the browser sandbox. Persistent caching has been significant issue/since it saves the data to persistent storage and makes a copy that doesn't disappear. Browsers have implemented timeouts for caching and allowing reloading from the original source. I kinda expected this level information from the case law reference, but guess the year number is good enough find.

  • On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use

    terop ( profile ), 10 Jun, 2025 @ 01:09am

    the time was already spent creating the product
    Copyright doesn’t hang on how much time is spent creating content.
    It is very common pattern with companies that they actually pay people based on the time spent, instead of how much copyrighted works was created. So very common compensation for copyrighted works is based on the time measurement. copyright is needed for different purpose. It protects the company from ripoffs. While the software is being developed, there is danger of unintended distribution of the source code and that allows the whole world to take the software and run with it, without passing compensation to the authors. Company still needs to pay based on time spent, but copyright's value is zero when the product has been ripped off by pirates. How is the company getting money to pay for the time?

  • On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use

    terop ( profile ), 10 Jun, 2025 @ 12:38am

    You provided no “citations” to the things that MrWilson was requesting.
    The damn software is the citation I'm relying on. If using my own copyrighted work is not enough for your standards to work as a citation for copyright issues, then I don't know what is. Relying on case law means just copy-pasting some keywords which refer to stuff we have no access to. Its just guesswork if some paperwork hidden in some lawyer's office matches the technological environment the software relies on. Probably these case law paperworks have some cool limitations of when the stuff is valid and when its not valid, but since the actual text is not available (and noone would bother reading them anyway), it's just useless. my own software on the other hand is significantly better to rely on,since I know every detail of it after spending 10 years writing the copyrighted work. But if I rely on stuff that I know, other people obviously have problems following it. So its either spouting bullshit about case law that I know nothing about. Or I spout stuff that I know well, but other people have trouble understanding. Its your call. Which would you prefer?

  • On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use

    terop ( profile ), 10 Jun, 2025 @ 12:19am

    If the software is free, you don’t have to find an authorized vendor.
    That's wrong. You still need to find authorized vendor. It's explicitly stated in the copyright law that 1) some operations are exclusive to author 2) you need explicit license to do those operations 3) only way to properly obtain the license is to find authorized vendor and ask a permission to do the stuff you want to do. Free software is no different in this respect. They just make it easier to find authorized vendor by looking at some text files distributed together with the software.

  • On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use

    terop ( profile ), 09 Jun, 2025 @ 11:49pm

    Which “new law” are you referring to? Surely such a law has a citation available.
    https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/temporary_copies_fnl.pdf says relevant cases you should look at are CoStar v. LoopNet and Cablevision remote DVR case.

  • On the post: The U.S. Copyright Office’s Draft Report On AI Training Errs On Fair Use

    terop ( profile ), 09 Jun, 2025 @ 10:44pm

    This is another unsupported claim from you. [citation needed]
    I posted citations, but it was filtered out by the spam filter, and seems the maintainers are not willing to give you the informattion you need to check the facts.

Next >>