Search the Community

Summary A US state government has proposed a law requiring retroactively that generative AI models have their training data sources disclosed. Quotes My thoughts This is nothing but good IMO. If we start requiring AI models to disclose what data they have ingested, we will have better quality models that can be checked against biases, and highlight which models are likely to result in output being lawsuit bait from purposely scraping/ripping commercial websites of non-free UGC material and other UGC sources. What I predict, is that if it does become law, commercial use of AI (eg ChatGPT) might slow down because the need to disclose will reveal which models have ingested copyrighted material should the output of an AI be claimed to be plagiarized of a copyrighted work. Can't use the defense of "well ChatGPT created it", when ChatGPT might have actually used the copyrighted work in it's training. Visual and Musical Artists will have a field day should it be revealed that their works were used to train a model and are being commercially used to replicate their styles. What I don't see happening is any actual abandoning or shutdown of commercial generative AI use. They'll just change their TOS to put the liability on the end user for checking. *UGC = User Generated Content, where the website is merely the publisher, not the owner. Think DeviantArt and Reddit. Sources https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/04/us-lawmaker-proposes-a-public-database-of-all-ai-training-material/ https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/rep-schiff-introduces-groundbreaking-bill-to-create-ai-transparency-between-creators-and-companies https://schiff.house.gov/imo/media/doc/the_generative_ai_copyright_disclosure_act.pdf

Summary Tachiyomi, a free, open source app for reading Manga, Manwha, Manhua, and comics, has ended development. The app was created 10 years ago, and has hundreds of thousands of users. Due to legal action being taken against them by a Korean company, the project has ceased development. Quotes My thoughts Background: Tachiyomi is split into several parts: The reader app, which contains your entries, chapters, and automatically tracks them, and extensions. Extensions get images for the reader to display for sources online, through API or Scraping. Not that Tachiyomi was not affiliated with any sources. The story, as I experienced it: At the start of 2024, Kakao asked Tachiyomi to destroy it's repository and all forks. Originally, Kakao alleged that the app was being used to illegally read "Solo Leveling." Kakao provided a list of the offending sources, and the offending sources were promptly removed from the app. However, since it is open source, many users were able to continue using the sources. Kakao asked for further action to be taken, and Tachiyomi removed all Internet sources, forcing users to self host a server (similar to plex). When that was not enough, Tachiyomi deleted all sources, and git history of the repository. The primary app added a feature for users to add third-party extension repositories. At this point, a Twitter account with the Tachiyomi logo called "Tachiyomi Community" was continuing to "assist people" with tutorials on how to use new features. While the account is not affiliated with the project, Kakao collected these and threatened the project once again. At this point, the project released a final version, and was archived. My thoughts on this: Kakao is within their right to go after providers of pirated content. However, Tachiyomi is akin to a browser, are they going to go after Google Chrome next? Was this maliciously used and known to them, and they chose to go after the project rather than the websites? Sources https://tachiyomi.org/news/2024-01-13-goodbye https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachiyomi?wprov=sfla1 https://github.com/tachiyomiorg

Youtube channel Installation00 has received multiple fraudulent copyright claims from 3rd party companies that are not the original copyright holder, nor associated with them. Installation00's main library of music comes from the Halo content they cover. Which is owned by Microsoft and is released under their Game Content Usage Rules policy with permission for content creators to make monetised content. One of these companies is Sony Music Publishing. Not only are their claims against Microsoft's IP, there are also fraudulent claims against music in the public domain. Herman Li from Dragonforce also recently published a video on TikTok explaining that the DragonForce YouTube channel had also reciev3d fraudulent copyright claims for their own music! Youtube's copyright system is completely broken, and allows for illicit 3rd parties to abuse the system and damage the incomes of smaller creators. Installation00 has notified Microsoft of the infringements of their IP, so we may see another legal battle between Sony and Microsoft soon enough Sources

Summary The USA's Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have started a probe on OpenAI in terms of data use, data security, and liability of ChatGPT's outputs. Questions like copyright of the data input, and how potentially harmful the outputs are to the users, are some of the topics that the probe is investigating [0, 1, 2]. OpenAI have said they will work with the FTC on this, and that GPT-4 was built using "years of safety research" [1]. Quotes My thoughts Slowly but surely, the legislative machinery is beginning to approach LLMs. This could be highly impactful for both OpenAI but also other LLM companies, as it will likely set a precedent on these things. In terms of harm, we've seen numerous examples of everything from defamation [3] and making up court cases [4], to death [5]. Although OpenAI seemingly tries their best to keep ChatGPT "safe" (for a suitable definition of that word), communities have sprung up to "jailbreak" it and get around these restrictions [6-8]. It's an arms race, but one which also requires a lot of philosophical thought in terms of what is safe and in what context. (And the question of "truth" can depend on what language you are currently chatting to it in, see e.g. [12]). Another interesting thought is whether this is even a valid question to ask in terms of LLMs like ChatGPT. Another user on the forum, Sauron, pointed out [13] that the systems weren't necessarily designed with safety/alignment in mind: they were made to believably predict and generate the next word given the existing text, and at that they are excellent! [14]. But this design-goal doesn't specify anything about safety. Obviously LLM companies have started caring about this, there was a whole section (Section 6) in the GPT-4 technical report dedicated to how they filtered harmful prompts [11], but it slightly seems to be something which has now been added to the spec, rather than intended from the get-go (at least to the extent we're now seeing). LLMs and copyright is also an interesting question. Copyright and the internet/digital age has always been awkward, and now that companies are building (highly profitable) systems using potentially copyrighted data, the situation is unlikely to get better; there is a lot of money at stake. (A completely naive question, but could ChatGPT output (and maybe even input) be considered "fair use", given that it is extremely transformative?) Finally there's the question of data privacy. ChatGPT ran afoul of Italy some months ago, due to GDPR concerns [9], and various companies have tried their best to keep employees from leaking company secrets by using ChatGPT [10]. However, LLMs need this extra interactive data; it is what improves them and makes them more "natural" to interact with. I don't think what OpenAI (and other LLM developers) are doing is any worse than social media and targeted ads, people post secret information on Discord these days [15], not to mention the myriad of War Thunder leaks, and all of this data is being used to train/improve some sort of algorithm. If more privacy regulations come of this however, I will be very glad to see that. Sources [0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/07/13/ftc-openai-chatgpt-sam-altman-lina-khan/ [1]: https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-ftc-opens-investigation-into-openai-washington-post-2023-07-13/ [2]: https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/13/23793911/ftc-openai-investigation-consumer-ai-false-information [3]: https://www.theverge.com/2023/6/9/23755057/openai-chatgpt-false-information-defamation-lawsuit [4]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/jun/23/two-us-lawyers-fined-submitting-fake-court-citations-chatgpt [5]: https://www.brusselstimes.com/430098/belgian-man-commits-suicide-following-exchanges-with-chatgpt [6]: https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/how-to-jailbreak-chatgpt/ [7]: https://github.com/0xk1h0/ChatGPT_DAN [8]: https://www.jailbreakchat.com/ [9]: https://techcrunch.com/2023/03/31/chatgpt-blocked-italy/ [10]: https://www.axios.com/2023/03/10/chatgpt-ai-cybersecurity-secrets [11]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774 [12]: https://thediplomat.com/2023/03/will-asian-diplomacy-stump-chatgpt/ [13]: https://linustechtips.com/topic/1517888-33-46-of-amazons-mechanical-turk-workers-estimated-to-use-llms-to-automate-their-work/?do=findComment&comment=16026532 [14]: https://fortune.com/longform/chatgpt-openai-sam-altman-microsoft/ [15]: https://www.polygon.com/23683683/discord-classified-documents-leak-thug-shaker-central-jack-teixeira

I am looking at getting into streaming. I had a friend that used to stream popular music all the time whilst playing and there was never any problems (no strikes or anything) and only the sound of the live-stream on play back (VOD) was muted at the copyrighted music parts when it was playing. So is this still the same or can you no longer use any copyright music at all to livestream even if you don't care about the VOD? Hopefully I'm making sense. Any other beginner tips for Twitch would be great. It is scary going into a crowded place starting at pure zero.

I stumbled upon this ad while scrolling through youtube

Note: This is my first news reporting thread. I apologize for the quote being off. Should note the main quote has two quotes within it (which is the further spaced parts). Also spellchecker decides to not function for no reason, so there might be some spelling errors. I also want to point out that this news is not super new, but it still feels recent. Summary Capture One is a photo editing program with some options to a subscription and an option for a full on license for the program. What's interesting about this is that someone apparently noticed a very interesting clause in the license agreement attempting to allow Capture One, without limitation, to request information regarding installation and/or use of the software, and/or to perform on-site investigations of your installations and use of the software. Quotes That’s normal enough, and merely reflects the power of copyright holders to impose “take it or leave it” conditions on users. Less common is the following: Capture One or a third-party designated by Capture One in its sole discretion has the right to verify your compliance with this License at any time upon request including without limitation to request information regarding your installation and/or use of the Software and/or to perform on-site investigations of your installation and use of the Software. If you use Capture One, you must provide “without limitation access to your premises, IT systems on which the Software is installed”, and “Capture One or an Auditor may decide in their sole discretion to apply software search tools in accordance with audits.” My thoughts There has been some debate as to whether or not a "EULA" (considered as part of contract law) is enforceable and can truly control what you have bought. I heard that contract law can limit rights, but I am not sure if this includes property rights, especially with the "not sold" part in EULAs for many physical products. I think the sole problem is contract law, as even the Copyright US office made this clear when it comes to the right to repair I think. Even if contract law cannot re-define copyright law (I even heard a court case somewhere that a breach of contract can still happen with software that's even in the public domain), it would still on itself be a problem if contract law itself can still be used to sue people for not obeying the "agreed" terms. I mainly wanted to spread this news to further debate this, because it seems a lot of people still don't much talk about things like this. If contract law cannot control property, and that the "not sale" claim cannot be enforceable if the software is defined as a good (which I heard was later on) by law then, then it would seem weird if it can be enforced, but at the same time it's hard to tell for sure personally, especially when so many people seem to act as if average EULAs are still an enforceable legal contract mainly in the US. In my moral argument, if I pay for something lawful once, and it's in the privacy of my own home with no date of return, then I should get the right to such product alone and I morally believe any clause limiting it should never be enforceable, even if I saw it before the sale. Sources https://walledculture.org/does-copyright-give-companies-the-right-to-search-your-home-and-computer/ https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20211110/23501647922/does-copyright-give-companies-right-to-search-your-home-computer.shtml

Summary A group of academics have joined a legal battle in India that has pitted those who believe in free access to knowledge against powerful corporations that control half of the world’s publishing business. The case being heard at the Delhi High Court could have international ramifications as the debate around open access to scholarly work has intensified in recent years. The court will deliberate on whether it’s legal for researchers and students to use the Sci-Hub and LibGen websites, the self-proclaimed digital “pirates” trying to disseminate scholarly literature to whoever wants it. Quotes My thoughts I think, we need to settle this quickly and personally I don't want either of the services to get banned. Heck, I even wonder why did scholars pay to publishers to publish their articles ? they get nothing besides citations if their journals/work has been used for something in another study. They could have done something similar themselves by hosting it on say Github or another website of their own. Also this would add to the copyright infringement laws that knowledge should be free and quoting text from scholastic journals should not be classified as copyright infringement. Honestly, I just want the judges to be sound minded and give decision in favor of Miss. Elbakyan, lets hope the best Indian Judges can be pretty random. Also the articles cost a lot of money, for some context 1 USD = 75 INR, so say you wanted to purchase access to a 30 USD article its 2655 INR (18% taxes called GST) and that's a lot of money in a developing country like India where the per capita income is just around 95000 INR so you really think a person will be able to afford access to the article ? and before you guys ask, lots of colleges for higher education are government run hence the fees is subsidized in some form. Sources Indian academics throw weight behind Sci-Hub and LibGen in landmark case (trtworld.com)

Since my replay and recording functions from Geforce experience always turned off when I open my Browser (since the driver update 487.09) I investigated this further. The browser (Opera) was not the problem, I opened Firefox which had no effect on it before, but when I opened the Spotify webplayer the overlay message popped up that my replay is turned off and I wasn't able to turn it back on until I closed Spotify. The music mafia really knows no limits when it comes to protecting copyright. I hope this helps people who couldn't figure out why it turned off like me.

Hey guys, so what license could I use for my app that I'm going to sell? I'm hesitant of using open source licenses cause this software won't be open-source and I want to upload it to GitHub as part of my portfolio. Are there any licenses that can be used for commercial apps? Thanks in advance for the help! Kind Regards PrimeMinister

Just an FYI. I am not sure how this works and why it happened. Video title is: "You're Being Misled". I am not sure if I can post a link to the video. I will have to consult the rules before doing so.

Summary News site GamingOnLinux’s Twitter account recently posted they were blocked by the Chinese handheld company’s Twitter page after accusing them of taking YouTube footage of Steam Decks without credit to use in marketing for GPD devices. Liam Dawe describes the situation as such. When Liam tweeted this to GPD’s official Twitter account, instead of any type of response he was immediately blocked by the company. After noticing this, Liam proceeded to post a follow up tweet and a write up on his Linux gaming focused news site. Liam mentions he would’ve been open to exploring Linux on one of GPD’s devices however after these events brings the company’s integrity into question. My thoughts As I’ve mentioned in my last GPD post I was a customer of GPD backing the Win 3 and I’m completely in the camp of GamingOnLinux here. I’ve watched GPD’s moves heavily from the announcement of the Win 3 to now and it’s safe to say describing GPD as desperate is accurate. The company does not handle criticism well and will go as far as resorting to bribery unhappy customers with heavy discounts on upcoming GPD devices to get them to stay quiet at least in the cast with the GPD backers who were organizing chargebacks on the Win 3 due to received the wrong WiFi chip. All of that is detailed in a Reddit post about shifting attitudes in GPD’s subreddit. Sources GPD are getting quite desperate against the Steam Deck - GamingOnLinux by Liam Dawe Video from GamingOnLinux’s official YouTube showing proof.

Hi! So, im currently trying to learn the ins and outs of Unity. My purpose is to make a game. I've got a good idea of what the game is going to be, and will take many months to actually work on and finish. I was thinking of going through the trouble and putting it up on Steam if it meets my expectations, which it should. Obviously it'll be for free. My question is this: im using several soundtracks from the old Command and Conquer series, will my upload to Steam be rejected since im using music that's not technically created by me? My initial thoughts is no since im not profiting from any of it. Maybe ill have to credit it. don't know.

Can i get striken for using this scene from the Avengers as an intro for my videos, when the logo is getting powered on?

Anyone know of some good (preferably free) sites with large selections of royalty free music to use for video projects? The ones I've found so far don't have big free selections and the music is just generally not that good.

Hey, what is the best software to download a 27 minute youtube video? This video is not copyrighted and is legal to download, I just want to use it as the base for another video. Please thank you.

Hello guys ive downloaded this song: And slow it down by 2% and lower down the bass little bit, will i have future problems or claims over my next video series that will use only this song and will be 30-50sec each [monetized] My friend told me that many rappers do this so they avoid getting in trouble, by choosing some beat they like and with some minimal edit they make it count as their own ''unique'' version of the beat. I am not familiar how thoose things work, so i will appreciate if someone knows.

Hi, Today, while browsing Youtube's recommended, I found (yet another) copycat channel for Linus content: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVdpHTu82e3i2WIdhVwvoLg/videos?sort=dd&view=0&shelf_id=0 Found it after I was doing some research on pfSense boxes, and suddenly I see Linus there with the router build, but the channel name was all wrong. Don't know who to tag, but I guess it would be Colton.

Hello!I run a business where I record student classical music recitals at my college. These days, many people want to share their performances via a live stream. Who should I contact in order to get permissions to stream a copyrighted work? What licences do I need? Who do I contact to show I have obtained proper licencing to keep my stream from being pulled down? Additionally, what platform/streaming software might you guys recommend for this? Thanks! -Matt

Hey guys I am looking to protect my pictures with a copyright (as most people do) and was wondering whats tool you use or if there is a batch tool that i can use? I am looking for free tools that also support batch processing. Thanks

Hi, could someone help me understand if I am violating the copyright law. Because me and my friends plan to make a game using multiple songs but only using portions of each songs never the whole copy of it. If I use a portion of a song let say around 10-45 seconds of play time in a game will I be violating the copyright law? One good example of an existing app "Dont forget the lyrics" link to see the app https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bluecorner.dontforgetthelyrics&hl=en do we need to contact all of the artist whose song we are going to use? Thanks in advance!

Hi I'm trying to make a few videos on E3 content that have been announced so far and I'm having a friend a few states away do the voice overs. The only problem is I don't know where I can go to find photos I won't get hit with copyright issues on. Any ideas on a web service I can use or a way to use footage from E3 without getting hit by copyright violations?

Just got an email today with Comcast updating their terms of service. There are many questionable items listed. Source: https://www.xfinity.com/Corporate/Customers/Policies/additionalterms.html?rid=3820064855&mid=20170726_AdHoc_CM_RSA From Section 1: (Don't know why the have it listed in all caps) I do not know why they would need access into your computers or other devices, and for some reason to "fix" your service they see fit to void the warranty of a device, they do not have to pay the penalty, you do. This is just outrageous to put some of this in a ToS for internet. "Sir, I need to open your TV to make sure it is compatible with our service." Section 2 seems to allow Comcast (and in turn the TV agency's they own) to use any content you "publish, transmit, or distribute" over their network without having to pay for it. We keep the rights, but are not able to stop them from using it.

Hey there! I was just wondering if we were allowed to use LinusKappa as an emote in, say, a Discord server. Thanks

A youtuber ik mumbojumbo (3 million subs) has received 450 content id claims in the span of a few hours from warners chappel over the music used in his videos of which the only music included in all vidoes is his intro of which he has written signed permission from the creator of the tune to use it in his videos. Youtube has been rather silent to this but I assume being rather big he will probably have this resolved. What worries me is if this is what happens to the big creators what music happen to the smaller creators who may get these claims and not know whether they should dispute them even though they may have the rights to whatever is in their videos out of fear that they might receive copyright strikes. As far as I can see this appears to be a blatant misuse of the content id claims and youtube really needs to do something about companies like this acting this way.