My best guess is that it flew under the radar. The Kaggle dataset has 'only' 10,000 downloads, and the article itself probably doesn't have that many views. Still, this seems pretty far beyond the pale. Given the other case of AI-related plagiarism by Microsoft that was on the front page[1], it seems whatever review process they have for content that is published by their employees, if there is any review process at all, is deeply flawed.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47057829, "Microsoft morged my diagram". It was in a discussion there that someone pointed out this article linking to full downloads of the Harry Potter novels, which I thought deserved more visibility.
Also, I imagine that most of those 10k downloads are probably from AI trainers that are just speed running through Kaggle to obtain absolutely anything to train their AI. There are definitely other, more 'known' ways to obtain these books without finding them as random text files in an AI dataset operation
It rubs me the wrong way that corporations get a free pass on copyright infrigement, while the rest of us are prosecuted as harshly as possible if caught. I think this, together with the morging plagiarism, also indicates a pattern of behaviour from Microsoft that should be reformed. I would prefer if Microsoft were not able to produce AI slop degradations of other people's work and claim it as their own.
I refrained from replying to this until now because I felt this thread was excessively pedantic, but Aaron Swartz is in fact one of the cases I had in mind when writing my original comment about "harshly as possible". To say that his case was only "tangentially" copyright-related is whitewashing the copyright lobby of its complicity in his death. It is, in fact, the primary reason he died. The US government was trying to make an example out of him, and stacked every charge they possibly could, because of his act of copyright infringement. Perhaps, with a shallow understanding of the case, you might see the list of felonies he was charged with and come to the conclusion that copyright infringement was only one small part of the case against him. But the copyright infringement was the crux of the case, and the rest of the charges were "throwing the book at him" in the well-defined meaning of the term[1]. His suicide was a direct result of the overzealous prosecution attempting to ruin his life with charges wildly disproportionate to the harm he caused to society (ie. basically none). It is worth noting he had not even shared the material he had downloaded, although the prosecution made a case on asserting that they believed he intended to.
Now, as for "the rest of us are prosecuted as harshly as possible if caught". You are correct in your pedantry that this statement not expressed as rigorously as it possibly could have been. There are different classes of copyright infringement; "receiving" and "perpetuating" being two of them [to avoid further pedantry, I am not asserting this is precise legal terminology but rather a lay distinction for the purposes of discussion]. It is the latter case which is tried as harshly as possible when caught, and there are many such examples other than Swartz, and I think it was clear my intent when I said it despite the fact that I did not write about the distinction at length.
That is not to say the situation around the former type of copyright infringement is so kind, either. While in some countries it is mostly overlooked, which I believe to be the case in the US, in other countries it is more strictly enforced, such being the case in my own country. While "as harshly as possible" isn't accurate to prosecution against infringement of this nature, you can still be disproportionately punished relative to the damage caused when downloading pirated material for personal viewing, if caught (and ISPs/rightsholders do monitor for it to the best of their abilities).
There is also a third class of copyright infringement to consider which is highly disfavourable to individuals: derivative works. Strictly speaking, even as something as simple as drawing fanart of a character or remixing a song is illegal, even if the activity is completely non-commercial in nature. This is, of course, absolutely ridiculous. Rightsholders know that copyright law reformation would gain tremendous popular support if they were draconian about enforcing their rights against derivative works, and that allowing fan communities to bloom is actually beneficial to their own IP, so enforcement is highly selective. However, that arbitrary, selective nature of enforcement is itself dangerous to individuals, and is sometimes used to punish specific individuals as harshly as possible at the whims of the IP holder. It is true that not everyone is actually subjected to this, but the threat of it happening looms over everyone who expresses their creativity through derivative works.
None of this sits right with me, especially as corporations are hoovering up every piece of copyrighted material they possibly can and creating commercial derivative-work-machines that mass-produce sloppified derivative works, and are getting a completely free pass by the legal system to do so while individuals are still treated like felons for 'crimes' that are at most marginally harmful, or in the case of the creative production of derivative works, not only not harmful but actually beneficial to society.
Show me one person who has been punished in any way for pirating ole Jo's books.
Shit, I don't even think the people who screamed "Snape killed Dumbledore" at lines for book 6 based on leaked copies that hit before the street date got in any trouble.
>Shit, I don't even think the people who screamed "Snape killed Dumbledore" at lines for book 6 based on leaked copies that hit before the street date got in any trouble.
How could anyone possibly get in trouble for something that isn't a crime?
Rowling is among the last persons on earth that need help on this.
But ignoring that: I do not think that these txt files being online do any economic harm. Noone will go and say "hey, I'm going to read these un-formatted text files instead of buying the 30 year old books for little money or pirating proper epubs which are trivial to find". If at all the kaggle dataset is free publicity. So as the author I would leave them online.
Back in the day, text mining for science was mostly ignored, even though it was technically illegal. Authors didn't feel threatened by models for spam detection or sentiment classification. Demanding money from poor academics was pointless (they'd just move on to a different author) and bad PR.
I mean, books3 contained hundreds of thousands of copyrighted books, and people released it under their own name.
My guess is HP makes such an enormous amount of money already from movies, games, toys, and other tie-ins, that they can't be bothered to chase down the odd digital infringement of a plain text copy of the original books.
I'm sure the scripts of Star Wars would be similarly ignored if they were used.
I think Microsoft employees should be smart enough to figure that "a globally beloved collection of seven books" (their words) is probably not free to use.
It is just very hard problem when you are very popular work. Trying to find and track and take down all copies of certain work online is constant fight. Sometimes things just slip especially if they are not that popular.
Something like Harry Potter might be shared every day. And I mean as pirate work distributed as new copy. Staying on top of that will be very hard work.
How soon before someone will be able to make an online library which generates the original books using LLMs? Surely popular titles like Harry Potter may end up so well represented in the training that we'll get the full books out of the LLM with a close to 100% accuracy?
This is already possible for Harry Potter specifically. There was a study demonstrating that Sonnet 3.7, among other models tested, could reproduce the first Harry Potter book 95.8% verbatim[1].
...only if you deliberately attempt to extract it by repeatedly prompting it to complete fragments of the book. They had to do quite a bit of work to make this happen.
so? It demonstrates that LLM models retain the copyrighted material in their weights. This is an important thing to consider about LLMs and shows that there need to be better protections for the creative industry.
Really? I retain plenty of copyrighted material in my head. What matters is the contexts in which I reproduce it (if any).
A search index might also contain copyrighted material. As long as it's used for search queries as opposed to regurgitation there's no problem. Search indexes and LLMs are both clearly very beneficial tools to have access to.
What does this (thought) experiment accomplish? That is, what point are you trying to make here?
Since we're talking about an electronic system the search index example is the more directly relevant one. Anyone who wants to object to LLMs is going to need to take care to ensure consistency with his views on Google's search index.
You could do the equivalent if they would let you. They don't. That's the point I was getting at. How the thing is used is what actually matters, not that it has "absorbed" copyrighted material.
I never claimed any change in copyright law. Only that one analogy was more direct than the other for the purpose of the current discussion.
You didn't answer my question. What point were you trying to make with your earlier reply?
Professional performers could certainly be viewed as such in this analogy. They memorize and then reproduce copyrighted material as a matter of course.
And when they do is when copyright protections might come into play. But not the basic learning of being a human being.
My playing copyrighted music on my synths at home, or singing lyrics along are different than if I am a professional musician benefiting financially from playing someone else's music in public.
Producing a product = market rules apply
Just living as a human = totally different thing
I feel like the title is a bit misleading, unless the person who put all HP books on Kaggle as a (supposedly) CC0-licensed data set did so as a Microsoft employee.
Nevertheless pretty egregious oversight (incompetence?) and something that shouldn't have been published.
Microsoft could have used any dataset for their blog, they could have even chosen to use actual public domain novels. Instead, they opted to use copywritten works that JK hasn't released into the public domain (unless user "Shubham Maindola" is JK's alter ego).
If it comes from a site claiming it was under a licence when it was not, the misdeed is done by the person who provided the version carrying the licence.
Just because it says "CC0" does not make it CC0. If you upload a dataset you don't have the rights to, any license declaration you make is null and void, and anyone using it as if it had that license is violating copyright
Even if MS could claim that they were acting in good faith there really isn't much legal wiggle room for that. But it doesn't even come to that because I don't think anyone would buy that they really thought that the Harry Potter books were under the CC0
If you buy a pirated book on Amazon you get to keep the book and the pirate printer is the one persecuted.
Same thing applies here.
Up to 80% off all works that are in copyright terms are accidentally in the public domain. A well known example is Night of the Living Dead. It is not your job to check that the copiright on a work you use is the correct one.
Section 116 (2) A plaintiff is not entitled by virtue of this section to any damages or to any other pecuniary remedy, other than costs, if it is established that, at the time of the conversion or detention:
(a) the defendant was not aware, and had no reasonable grounds for suspecting, that copyright subsisted in the work or other subject - matter to which the action relates;
(b) where the articles converted or detained were infringing copies--the defendant believed, and had reasonable grounds for believing, that they were not infringing copies; or
(c) where an article converted or detained was a device used or intended to be used for making articles--the defendant believed, and had reasonable grounds for believing, that the articles so made or intended to be made were not or would not be, as the case may be, infringing copies.
Does this not mean the opposite of your claim? It sounds to me that if you unwittingly bought a dodgy copy of something, the law thinks the copyright owner can get you to pay for a legit copy, but not punish you for your mistake.
In the specific case of the Harry Potter works, the fame might meet the threshold of reasonable grounds for believing, but noosphr's argument that "Up to 80% off all works that are in copyright terms are accidentally in the public domain" could grant a reasonable grounds for believing it is not.
This is one of those things that causes interesting court cases because a reasonable grounds for believing X is not the same thing as not reasonable grounds for believing not X.
Reasonable grounds for suspicion probably carries more weight here than reasonable grounds for the absence of suspicion, but cases have hung on things like this before , like the presence or absence of an Oxford comma.
The licensing: If I steal something and tell you its free and yours for the taking, that feels different than a Fence (knowingly) buying stolen goods. It's obviously semantics and there should have been some better judgemend from MS, but downloading a dataset (stated as public domain) from kaggle feels spiritually different from piracy (e.g.: if someone uploads a less known, copyrighted data set to kaggle/huggingface under an incorrect license, are tutorials that use this data set a 'guide to pirating' this data set? To me, that feels like a wrong use of the term)
To clarify: Microsoft linked to a dataset on Kaggle, which is falsely labeled CC0 (Public Domain). It's the fault of the user who uploaded the dataset and misrepresented the licensing.
Multiple failures. One on writer of blog even for a moment considering that such data set would be legal. And next for MS for hiring such a person with that poor judgement. Namely publicly posting about it on company platform. Instead of choosing some other data set.
I don't believe that title conveys the actual significance of the article that makes it worthy of attention, so I hope HN may forgive me for coming up with an alternative title!
The real cherry on top, is that the Microsoft link from the blog post by the Microsoft senior product manager goes to a Kaggle dataset page claiming the dataset is CC0: Public Domain.
> it seems linking to a copy that claims the dataset is public domain, would be problematic copyright-wise.
Would it? Sounds to me like the blame lies on the person uploading the dataset under that license, unless there is some reasonable person standard applied here like 'everyone knows Harry Potter, and thus they should know it is obviously not CC0'
I'm not a copyright expert and if you told me that Harry Potter was common domain then I'd probably be a bit surprised but wouldn't think it's crazy. The first book came out 30 years ago after all. On further research the copyright laws are way more aggressive than that (a bit too much if you ask me) but 30 years doesn't seem quick. Patents expire after 20 years.
I find this fascinating, as I keep observing that there are pretty widespread differences between what people believe copyright does and what the law actually says.
The Berne Convention (author's life + 50 years) is the baseline for the copyright laws in most countries. Many countries have a longer copyright period than Berne.
I think even people who don't care about how broken the copyright system is understand intuitively that huge commercial properties that are contemporaneous with themselves are protected. They don't need to know any details to know that these properties belong to massive companies and aren't free for the taking.
How many people think they can rip off Disney characters even if they don't know how much Disney lobbied to extend their ownership? People can observe that no one but Disney gets to use them and understand, even if not consciously, that those are Disney's to use.
^ Probably poorly written without time to proof cause time constraint.
> unless there is some reasonable person standard applied here like 'everyone knows Harry Potter, and thus they should know it is obviously not CC0'
Yes there's an expectation that you put in some minimum amount of effort. The license issue here is not subtle, the Kaggle page says they just downloaded the eBooks and converted them to txt. The author is clearly familiar enough with HP to know that it's not old enough to be public domain, and the Kaggle page makes it pretty clear that they didn't get some kind of special permission.
If you want to get more specific on the legal side then copyright infringement does not require that you _knew_ you were infringing on the copyright, it's still infringement either way and you can be made to pay damages. It's entirely on you to verify the license.
The article author and the uploader should _BOTH_ be sentient enough to engage brain and not just ignore it because they feel "it's an abstract concept I'd not get in trouble for when not working in the US or EU".
Copyright infringement is a strict liability tort in the US. Willful infringement can result in harsher penalties, but being mistaken about the copyright status is not a valid defense.
Wow, that is a great catch. I looked at the Kaggle page. It has been up for two years. From the hamburger menu (top right), I tried: Report Dataset. When I click the button "Report illegal content", I am redirected to a Google page (huh?): https://support.google.com/legal/troubleshooter/1114905?prod...
When I try to fill the questionaire, my request is rejected with this message:
We understand that you are not legally authorized to file a copyright complaint on behalf of the copyright owner.
In accordance with applicable copyright laws, we only accept copyright complaints from copyright owners or their authorized representatives. If you have legal questions about copyright law, please consult your own legal counsel.
We are sorry we cannot assist you further.
Hysterical. What a farce. That data set is pure theft.
Since IP law is apparently dead, does anyone want to invest in my ai generated novel startup where it just spits out Harry Potter verbatim but uses a bunch of power to do so.
Well they're not an alternative, so I suppose not. No one is being chained to a desk and made to author reports on how their department is aligning with the new business growth strategy. And the robot slaves aren't being designed to mine precious minerals or attach buttons to clothes.
Robot slaves is a funny phrase if you consider that the origin of the word robot literally is a term that meant slave or "forced work". Language doing circles.
Not only that, but in Russian, the equivalent word for verb "work" (as in "go work" or "do work"), is "rabotay", which is derived from the word "rab" which is the word "slave". So "to work" is literally "to slave", in Russian (and quite a few slavic languages). An English speaker may categorize this as a linguistic anachronism, but a slavic speaker would categorize this as linguistic honesty.
This is pretty common. In Hebrew aved means both "work" and "slavery" and you have the same in Arabic and other semitic languages. In Ancient Egyptian "bak" is used for both "servant" and "worker". The ambiguity in the Hebrew is why many references to this are translated as "servile labor" in the King James, as they were uncertain of the sense of the term meant, or perhaps correctly guessed that both senses were meant. In many ancient languages, e.g. ancient egyptian "worker" and "slave" were synonyms. In modern parlance "slavery" or "servitude" is viewed as an unspeakable evil and people are shocked that there is linguistic overlap with neutral terms like "work" or "labor", which are just ubiquitous parts of life, but historically this is quite common and it is true all around the world, for example in German "knecht" means both "servant" and "farm hand", and in Latin "minister" meant "servant" or "subordinate" (as opposed to "magister"), just like in english you have "server", "serve", "servant", "servile". In Sanskrit "dasa" originally meant "foreigner" or "enemy" and then later "slave" but over time it has come to be used as a suffix to denote someone who "serves" a diety voluntarily, e.g. "Ramdas". In Ancient Japanese you have "yakko" for a low status worker or servant, and later that evolved to footmen who carried baggage for samurai.
Wait until you find out what the word 'ciao' meant in the original Italian/Latin: 'ORIGIN: Italian dial. alt. of schiavo (I am your) slave from medieval Latin sclavus slave.'
The bee movie, but every frame was passed through an AI to make it Ghibli style, the audio was turned into a transcript by a transcribing AI and then turned into audio by a TTS AI.
Very low code. Infinite scale. Name a better AI startup to invest.
The lesson that I am taking away from AI companies (and their billionaire investors and founders), is that property theft is perfectly fine. Which is a _goofy_ position to have, if you are a billionaire, or even a millionaire. Like, if property theft is perfectly acceptable, and if they own most of the property (intellectual or otherwise), then there can only be _upside_ for less fortunate people like us.
The implicit motto of this class of hyper-wealthy people is: "it's not yours if you cannot keep it". Well, game on.
(There are 56.5e6 millionaires, and 3e3 billionaires -- making them 0.7% of the global population. They are outnumbered 141.6 to 1. And they seem to reside and physically congregate in a handful of places around the world. They probably wouldn't even notice that their property is being stolen, and even if they did, a simple cycle of theft and recovery would probably drive them into debt).
You guys are talking about copyright but I think a bigger takeaway is there is a process breakdown at Microsoft. Nobody is reading or reviewing these documentation so what hope is there that anybody is reading or reviewing their new code?
I guess the question to leadership is that two of the three pillars , namely security and quality are at odds with the third pillar— AI innovation. Which side do you pick?
(I know you mean well and I love you, Scott Hanselman but please don't answer this yourself. Please pass this on to the leadership.)
> Nobody is reading or reviewing these documentation so what hope is there that anybody is reading or reviewing their new code?
Why do you assume that reviewing docs is a lower bar than reviewing code, and that if docs aren't being reviewed it's somehow less likely that code is being reviewed?
There's a formal process for reviewing code because bugs can break things in massive ways. While there may not be the same degree of rigor for reviewing documentation because it's not going to stop the software from working.
But one doesn't necessarily say anything about the other.
If they have the documentation... With Microsoft probably the answer to that is yes, but more often than not documentation is simply absent. And in cases like this not being too aware of where the lines are is probably a great way to advance your career.
Reviewing docs is a lower bar than reviewing code because it's a lower bar than reviewing code.
I have never even heard of a software company that acts otherwise (except IBM, and much of the world of Silicon Valley software engineering is reactionary to IBM's glacial pace).
I'm not saying docs == code for importance is a bad way to be, just that if you can name firms that treat them that way other than IBM (or aerospace), I'd be interested to learn more.
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing, maybe my use of "lower bar" was ambiguous, and I realize now it has a dual meaning.
What I'm saying is, you have to review code to get it out the door with a certain degree of quality. That's your core product. That's the minimum standard you have to pass, the lowest bar.
In contrast, reviewing documentation is usually less core. You do that after the code gets reviewed. If there's time. If it doesn't get done, that's not necessarily saying anything about code quality.
Even if it's easier to review documentation, that doesn't mean it's getting prioritized. So it's not a lower bar in the sense that lower bars get climbed first.
>> I realize BSOD is no longer nearly as common as it once was
Anecdotally, installing wrong drivers (in my case it was drivers for COM-port STM32 interaction) could make it as common as twice a day on Win11.
While my windows server 2008 still doing just great, no BSOD through lifetime.
I agree that for a common user BSOD is now less likely to happen, but wonder whether it's less to do with windows core, and more with windows defender default aggressive settings
Regardless, their point is that the argument seems faulty. Indeed, their docs going unreviewed seems moot to whether the code goes unreviewed, given there are much stronger reasons to review code than there are to review documentation; as they wrote, bad documentation doesn't automatically break your application when it's published (there's at least a few more steps involved). Your statement's accuracy is not exclusive to the illogic of an argument which agrees with the statement.
> I don't know if you are just playing devil's advocate
Indeed, that is playing Devil's Advocate but one should remember that such Advocacy is performed to make sure that arguments against the Devil are as strong as they can be. It's not straightforward to see how simply repeating an assertion helps to argue for the veracity of it.
At another BigCo I am familiar with any external communications must go through a special review to make sure no secrets are being leaked, or exposes the company to legal or PR issues (for example the OP).
Likely it wouldn't get written at all. The most useful aspect of layered approval processes is people treat them like outright bans and don't blog at all unless it's part of the job description.
Yea, I have a post up there from a couple decades ago (maybe? I haven't looked, I don't know if they keep stuff up forever) and I guarantee you my code went through more review than that post did.
On the contrary, getting away with breaking the law is most of the innovation in the past decade. Look at Uber and AirBNB, and cryptocurrency, and every AI company.
The chrome browser and the v8 engine are innovations. The Go language is an innovation. Pet cameras, simple as they are, are an innovation.
Uber is a rebadged taxi service with seedier people than before.
AirBnB is a less disguised but still rebadged B&B service with seedier people than before.
Charlie Munger said it best. Cryptocurrency is like seeing a bunch of people trading turds and saying to yourself "well.. I don't want to miss out!" The seediest of all people.
AI doesn't even really exist by any common definition. They have supremely weak and power hungry language models trained on terabytes of stolen data and reddit conversations.
Hell, watching a guy hammer himself in his own nuts on youtube is an innovation, and I think I'm going to go do /that/ now instead of being depressed. Watching "ow my balls" and baitin'. What's left?
Bitcoin and shitcoin holders being among "the seediest of all people" while the Western oligarchy mailed each other the most vile things that probably happened iRL leaves a bitter taste. Don't know if you really thought this through.
Whilst I understand it shows a break down somewhere, it a bit of a stretch to extend that idea across their entire codebase.
Organizations are large, so much so that different levels of rigor across different parts of the organization. Furthermore, more rigorous controls would be applied to code than for documentation (you would assume).
Yeah, I recently stumbled on some other devblogs post very similar in quality to the one that was linked here, which was basically wholesale plagiarism of a stackoverflow answer. I found it while searching for an error message.
I worked at Microsoft for many years and blogged there.
Microsoft was unique among the companies I worked for in that they gave you some guidelines and then let you blog without having to go through some approval or editing process. It made blogging much more personal and organic IMO; company-curated blog posts read like marketing.
I didn’t see the original post but it looks like somebody made a bad judgment call on what to put in a company blog post (and maybe what constitutes ethical activity) and that it was taken down as soon as someone noticed.
I care much less about whether the person exercised good judgment in posting, and don’t care (and am happy) that there was not some process that would have caught it pre-publication.
I care much more if the person works in a team that believes that copyright infringement for AI training is a justifiable behavior in a corporate environment.
And now we know that is a thing, and I suspect that there will be some hard questions asked by lawyers inside the company, and perhaps by lawyers outside the company.
I remember back in 2004 or thereabouts, Microsoft was all in on blogging. There was content published about internal blogs. Huge swaths of people working on Vista (then, Longhorn) were blogging about all sorts of exciting things. Microsoft was pretty friendly with people blogging externally, too: Paul Thurrott comes to mind.
It feels out of character for a company like Microsoft to have such a policy, but I agree that it's insanely cool that some very cool folks get to post pretty freely. Raymond Chen could NEVER run his blog like that at FAANG.
Raymond generally discusses public things and history. That's allowable plenty of places.
Bruce Dawson was publishing debugging stories (including things debugged about Google products done as part of his job) for the entire time he was working at Google: https://randomascii.wordpress.com/
most likely, there seems there are plenty of devs from nearly all major tech companies on HN, they often don't chime in as much anymore when it comes to problems, I've wondered if they get some kind of guidance on not commenting on "problems".
Half the point of "AI" is to squeeze the labor market. This is why you don't see people chiming in. It's a nearly fully corrupt and monopolized system.
The general guidance is likely what I was told when I worked at Apple: essentially, as an employee, people will read what you write as though you are repenting Apple whether you are or are not.
So in short, I kept my mouth shut. I assumed I would lose my job if my public comment reached the right people.
Azure and felt overwhelmed? As a student or first- time user to cloud computing, I've been there too. The idea of creating a chatbot or search app using GPT sounds exciting, but the process of setting up everything right from the vector database, provisioning OpenAl models, to integrating them,
Feel free to create an alternative. Keep in mind it's completely illegal and you will get the book thrown at you if you are caught. You will also end up using your captcha page to DDOS people who are trying to unmask you.
I recall the source code for Windows XP was leaked some years ago; not just isolated parts of the code base, like with the earlier Windows NT4/2000 source code leak, but a completely buildable repository.
If I write an article on training an LLM on the leaked Windows XP source code, blithely mark the source code repo as in 'the public domain', but used Azure resources for the how-to steps, would that would make it OK Microsoft? You know, your Azure division might get some money...
Seriously, this is just so...blatant. It's like we've all collectively decided that copyright just doesn't matter anymore. Just readin this article, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Github never deletes commits so we just need to find the hash for the latest one before the force push. In the forks you can find ones from before, but they're not up to date. Example: b5c8280d87c501d9ca7f63a6f252ca60ca820a4a for a copy 3 months old
Link: https://github.com/Azure-Samples/azure-sql-db-vector-search/...
the merge commits in those repositories are all digitally signed by GitHub public key, so the previous history is fully authenticated and non-repudiable
so any copies now can be trivially proven to be genuine output by Microslop
hoisted by your own petard
signed merge commit is: 987eee6af61788647ae0cab82ae8a5d9402a5bd0
PGP signature (using GitHub's key: B5690EEEBB952194) is:
I... There are parts of the world where certain developers don't understand the way the west tends to work with regard to copyright, or not blindly copying anything that is out there.
This however is a very, VERY poor situation when you end up placing your employer at risk because you think copyright doesn't matter and everything on the internet is fair game.
This is probably the most polite way I would describe this to most, UG. For the rest, jus stop acting like cheating through a situation to get a step up is the norm, it's just dirty behaviour.
Disrespecting the copyright on a multi-billion dollar franchise hardly comes close to the major unethical behavior the trillion dollar companies are committing.
I am more worried about lack of any thought that this one might be a bad idea. If the people going through very selective hiring process can't even figure out that publicising article based on copyright theft is bad idea what is going on with actually impactful decisions?
So you're saying, it's legal to teach AI using illegally sourced copyrighted material, because it's for educational purposes only - interesting argument... ;)
Intent (should) be what matters. If you want to learn how to train AI and use copyrighted material in your learning - I don’t care in the slightest at all.
In fact if you do this as a nonprofit or at an educational institution in a teaching context it’s explicitly allowed by fair use already.
If you do it individually, idk I’m not a lawyer. But it should be allowed on principle.
But if you then go take your trained AI and deploy it for commercial purposes that’s a different story and should have protections for the original rights holders.
It doesnt offer a guide to piracy, it offers a guide on including specific data from a dataset into SQL so it can be referenced by an LLM.
If anything Kaggle would be on the hook for including the data as CC0. Or perhaps to Shubham Maindola for uploading it. In fact the "provenance" listed would give me chills. Crazy how this got a 10.0 score. "I downloaded the ebooks of Harry Potter. Then converted them to txt files."
“Fair use” allows for educational usage of copyrighted material. Technically it probably is not fair use as Microsoft isn’t an educational institution or a nonprofit.
But come on … these guides really are for learning purposes. Doesn’t seem like a big deal to me at all. They aren’t even hosting it, just pointing to kaggle who is hosting it.
On principle copyright law should allow this kind of learning use case anyway.
I thought it was exaggerated but reading the archive, yeah that’s something that should not pass even glancing over by public communication person, or even like any manager like senior product manager…
I have hated Microsoft for decades and am somewhat of an extremist when it comes to avoiding their products. That being said, this piracy shaming headline for a Microsoft research project example, not a product integration, is entirely misleading and hysterical. The lengths that stooges will go to protect copyright monopolies and eradicate fair use is also extreme and should be embarrassing.
The title does not shame piracy. It factually describes that the linked article is a Microsoft-published guide to piracy, wherein the instructions tell readers to commit the (illegal for normal people) act of downloading pirated material, while linking to said pirated material (also illegal for normal people), with further instructions on how to use that just-downloaded pirated material for LLM inference (maybe even illegal for corporations; Anthropic settled for $1.5B for using pirated books in its training) and publishing derivative works without license (illegal for normal people).
I hate the current copyright environment as much as anyone, but I do not abide double-standards, with a two-tier justice system wherein a corporation gets to freely enforce the draconian copyright regime against individuals while also getting to abuse individuals' creative works in ways much more egregious.
andsoitis | 22 hours ago
I'm surprised that JKR's people haven't come down like a tonne of bricks on Kaggle / Microsoft.
Does anyone know whether there is some special reason why this has lasted so long without being taken down?
[OP] anonymous908213 | 22 hours ago
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47057829, "Microsoft morged my diagram". It was in a discussion there that someone pointed out this article linking to full downloads of the Harry Potter novels, which I thought deserved more visibility.
zythyx | 21 hours ago
selridge | 21 hours ago
[OP] anonymous908213 | 21 hours ago
ryandrake | 21 hours ago
walletdrainer | 19 hours ago
But this is just a lie.
Approximately nobody is prosecuted for copyright infringement.
queenkjuul | 16 hours ago
walletdrainer | 15 hours ago
We’re moving the goalposts from the government systematically targeting normal people “if caught”, to only a handful of civil cases.
eggsome | 14 hours ago
I think most would agree that cases like that act as a deterrent?
walletdrainer | 13 hours ago
> I think most would agree that cases like that act as a deterrent?
I think we could hardly get any further from “the rest of us are prosecuted as harshly as possible if caught”.
[OP] anonymous908213 | 4 hours ago
[1]https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/throw_the_book_at
Now, as for "the rest of us are prosecuted as harshly as possible if caught". You are correct in your pedantry that this statement not expressed as rigorously as it possibly could have been. There are different classes of copyright infringement; "receiving" and "perpetuating" being two of them [to avoid further pedantry, I am not asserting this is precise legal terminology but rather a lay distinction for the purposes of discussion]. It is the latter case which is tried as harshly as possible when caught, and there are many such examples other than Swartz, and I think it was clear my intent when I said it despite the fact that I did not write about the distinction at length.
That is not to say the situation around the former type of copyright infringement is so kind, either. While in some countries it is mostly overlooked, which I believe to be the case in the US, in other countries it is more strictly enforced, such being the case in my own country. While "as harshly as possible" isn't accurate to prosecution against infringement of this nature, you can still be disproportionately punished relative to the damage caused when downloading pirated material for personal viewing, if caught (and ISPs/rightsholders do monitor for it to the best of their abilities).
There is also a third class of copyright infringement to consider which is highly disfavourable to individuals: derivative works. Strictly speaking, even as something as simple as drawing fanart of a character or remixing a song is illegal, even if the activity is completely non-commercial in nature. This is, of course, absolutely ridiculous. Rightsholders know that copyright law reformation would gain tremendous popular support if they were draconian about enforcing their rights against derivative works, and that allowing fan communities to bloom is actually beneficial to their own IP, so enforcement is highly selective. However, that arbitrary, selective nature of enforcement is itself dangerous to individuals, and is sometimes used to punish specific individuals as harshly as possible at the whims of the IP holder. It is true that not everyone is actually subjected to this, but the threat of it happening looms over everyone who expresses their creativity through derivative works.
None of this sits right with me, especially as corporations are hoovering up every piece of copyrighted material they possibly can and creating commercial derivative-work-machines that mass-produce sloppified derivative works, and are getting a completely free pass by the legal system to do so while individuals are still treated like felons for 'crimes' that are at most marginally harmful, or in the case of the creative production of derivative works, not only not harmful but actually beneficial to society.
selridge | 5 hours ago
Shit, I don't even think the people who screamed "Snape killed Dumbledore" at lines for book 6 based on leaked copies that hit before the street date got in any trouble.
mrguyorama | 3 hours ago
How could anyone possibly get in trouble for something that isn't a crime?
blibble | 20 hours ago
(done, contacted her lawyers too)
k__o | 18 hours ago
thunfischtoast | 8 hours ago
But ignoring that: I do not think that these txt files being online do any economic harm. Noone will go and say "hey, I'm going to read these un-formatted text files instead of buying the 30 year old books for little money or pirating proper epubs which are trivial to find". If at all the kaggle dataset is free publicity. So as the author I would leave them online.
miki123211 | 8 hours ago
I mean, books3 contained hundreds of thousands of copyrighted books, and people released it under their own name.
arkensaw | 22 hours ago
I'm sure the scripts of Star Wars would be similarly ignored if they were used.
amanzi | 21 hours ago
outside1234 | 21 hours ago
crtasm | 21 hours ago
Hamuko | 10 hours ago
blibble | 20 hours ago
ftfy
Ekaros | 14 hours ago
Something like Harry Potter might be shared every day. And I mean as pirate work distributed as new copy. Staying on top of that will be very hard work.
conartist6 | 22 hours ago
dom96 | 22 hours ago
[OP] anonymous908213 | 22 hours ago
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.02671
dom96 | 21 hours ago
Legend2440 | 21 hours ago
dom96 | 21 hours ago
fc417fc802 | 20 hours ago
A search index might also contain copyrighted material. As long as it's used for search queries as opposed to regurgitation there's no problem. Search indexes and LLMs are both clearly very beneficial tools to have access to.
themafia | 19 hours ago
fc417fc802 | 19 hours ago
Since we're talking about an electronic system the search index example is the more directly relevant one. Anyone who wants to object to LLMs is going to need to take care to ensure consistency with his views on Google's search index.
themafia | 19 hours ago
Also can you point out how copyright law changes because we're using an "electronic system" as opposed to an "analog system?"
fc417fc802 | 8 hours ago
I never claimed any change in copyright law. Only that one analogy was more direct than the other for the purpose of the current discussion.
You didn't answer my question. What point were you trying to make with your earlier reply?
_DeadFred_ | 19 hours ago
fc417fc802 | 8 hours ago
_DeadFred_ | 2 hours ago
My playing copyrighted music on my synths at home, or singing lyrics along are different than if I am a professional musician benefiting financially from playing someone else's music in public.
Producing a product = market rules apply Just living as a human = totally different thing
PeterStuer | 16 hours ago
Why exactly?
cadamsdotcom | 21 hours ago
PeterStuer | 16 hours ago
thrKan | 22 hours ago
https://archive.is/7WLho
boznz | 21 hours ago
agluszak | 21 hours ago
freitasm | 21 hours ago
rlabnm | 21 hours ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20260105115129/https://devblogs....
crtasm | 21 hours ago
FinnKuhn | 20 hours ago
qingcharles | 15 hours ago
fxwin | 22 hours ago
Nevertheless pretty egregious oversight (incompetence?) and something that shouldn't have been published.
robrain | 21 hours ago
ASalazarMX | 21 hours ago
blt | 21 hours ago
zythyx | 21 hours ago
bossyTeacher | 20 hours ago
Lerc | 21 hours ago
If it comes from a site claiming it was under a licence when it was not, the misdeed is done by the person who provided the version carrying the licence.
slopinthebag | 21 hours ago
wongarsu | 20 hours ago
Even if MS could claim that they were acting in good faith there really isn't much legal wiggle room for that. But it doesn't even come to that because I don't think anyone would buy that they really thought that the Harry Potter books were under the CC0
noosphr | 16 hours ago
Same thing applies here.
Up to 80% off all works that are in copyright terms are accidentally in the public domain. A well known example is Night of the Living Dead. It is not your job to check that the copiright on a work you use is the correct one.
nhinck2 | 15 hours ago
And it is your job to check that you have the rights to use other people's work. Ignorance is not a defence.
ribosometronome | 14 hours ago
Which ones? As far as I was aware, it's a crime to redistribute copyrighted works, not receive.
nhinck2 | 14 hours ago
noosphr | 12 hours ago
Lerc | 55 minutes ago
(a) the defendant was not aware, and had no reasonable grounds for suspecting, that copyright subsisted in the work or other subject - matter to which the action relates;
(b) where the articles converted or detained were infringing copies--the defendant believed, and had reasonable grounds for believing, that they were not infringing copies; or
(c) where an article converted or detained was a device used or intended to be used for making articles--the defendant believed, and had reasonable grounds for believing, that the articles so made or intended to be made were not or would not be, as the case may be, infringing copies.
Does this not mean the opposite of your claim? It sounds to me that if you unwittingly bought a dodgy copy of something, the law thinks the copyright owner can get you to pay for a legit copy, but not punish you for your mistake.
In the specific case of the Harry Potter works, the fame might meet the threshold of reasonable grounds for believing, but noosphr's argument that "Up to 80% off all works that are in copyright terms are accidentally in the public domain" could grant a reasonable grounds for believing it is not.
This is one of those things that causes interesting court cases because a reasonable grounds for believing X is not the same thing as not reasonable grounds for believing not X. Reasonable grounds for suspicion probably carries more weight here than reasonable grounds for the absence of suspicion, but cases have hung on things like this before , like the presence or absence of an Oxford comma.
fxwin | 21 hours ago
philipwhiuk | 20 hours ago
uyzstvqs | 20 hours ago
Ekaros | 14 hours ago
ThrowawayTestr | 21 hours ago
robrain | 21 hours ago
[OP] anonymous908213 | 21 hours ago
beached_whale | 21 hours ago
stuaxo | 8 hours ago
camkego | 21 hours ago
https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/shubhammaindola/harry-potter...
More than just using the data, it seems linking to a copy that claims the dataset is public domain, would be problematic copyright-wise.
Also interesting, this blog post has been up since November of 2024, very surprising to me that Microsoft hasn't taken it down yet.
fxwin | 21 hours ago
Would it? Sounds to me like the blame lies on the person uploading the dataset under that license, unless there is some reasonable person standard applied here like 'everyone knows Harry Potter, and thus they should know it is obviously not CC0'
Retr0id | 21 hours ago
Why wouldn't that apply?
xmprt | 21 hours ago
jacquesm | 21 hours ago
uniq7 | 9 hours ago
jacquesm | 6 hours ago
ijk | 16 hours ago
manarth | 12 hours ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_copyright_duration_by_...
alsetmusic | 6 hours ago
How many people think they can rip off Disney characters even if they don't know how much Disney lobbied to extend their ownership? People can observe that no one but Disney gets to use them and understand, even if not consciously, that those are Disney's to use.
^ Probably poorly written without time to proof cause time constraint.
DSMan195276 | 21 hours ago
Yes there's an expectation that you put in some minimum amount of effort. The license issue here is not subtle, the Kaggle page says they just downloaded the eBooks and converted them to txt. The author is clearly familiar enough with HP to know that it's not old enough to be public domain, and the Kaggle page makes it pretty clear that they didn't get some kind of special permission.
If you want to get more specific on the legal side then copyright infringement does not require that you _knew_ you were infringing on the copyright, it's still infringement either way and you can be made to pay damages. It's entirely on you to verify the license.
rob_c | 20 hours ago
pavon | 19 hours ago
throwaway2037 | 9 hours ago
When I try to fill the questionaire, my request is rejected with this message:
Hysterical. What a farce. That data set is pure theft.throawayonthe | 7 hours ago
(e.g. see youtube, where this is (used to be?) poorly enforced, it's a mess)
chronobyte | 2 hours ago
Sohcahtoa82 | 3 hours ago
electronsoup | 21 hours ago
larodi | 21 hours ago
WillMorr | 21 hours ago
Kapura | 21 hours ago
Den_VR | 21 hours ago
pixl97 | 20 hours ago
[1] actual indian
rgblambda | 19 hours ago
Kapura | 6 hours ago
Pfeil | 21 hours ago
nz | 19 hours ago
carefree-bob | 19 hours ago
castral | 18 hours ago
cmxch | 20 hours ago
ares623 | 20 hours ago
themafia | 19 hours ago
AlienRobot | 19 hours ago
Very low code. Infinite scale. Name a better AI startup to invest.
userbinator | 19 hours ago
So far, the only thing I've found AI to be consistently good at is entertainment of the humourous kind.
fooker | 18 hours ago
Everything new is AI slop, and there seems to be no coming back from it.
bhadass | 18 hours ago
fooker | 17 hours ago
whatever1 | 18 hours ago
nz | 8 hours ago
The implicit motto of this class of hyper-wealthy people is: "it's not yours if you cannot keep it". Well, game on.
(There are 56.5e6 millionaires, and 3e3 billionaires -- making them 0.7% of the global population. They are outnumbered 141.6 to 1. And they seem to reside and physically congregate in a handful of places around the world. They probably wouldn't even notice that their property is being stolen, and even if they did, a simple cycle of theft and recovery would probably drive them into debt).
wewewedxfgdf | 21 hours ago
selridge | 21 hours ago
Everyone should torrent and rip off those books, anyway.
thehamkercat | 21 hours ago
actionfromafar | 21 hours ago
anpat | 21 hours ago
thehamkercat | 21 hours ago
outside1234 | 21 hours ago
mcny | 21 hours ago
I guess the question to leadership is that two of the three pillars , namely security and quality are at odds with the third pillar— AI innovation. Which side do you pick?
(I know you mean well and I love you, Scott Hanselman but please don't answer this yourself. Please pass this on to the leadership.)
crazygringo | 21 hours ago
Why do you assume that reviewing docs is a lower bar than reviewing code, and that if docs aren't being reviewed it's somehow less likely that code is being reviewed?
There's a formal process for reviewing code because bugs can break things in massive ways. While there may not be the same degree of rigor for reviewing documentation because it's not going to stop the software from working.
But one doesn't necessarily say anything about the other.
jacquesm | 21 hours ago
shadowgovt | 20 hours ago
I have never even heard of a software company that acts otherwise (except IBM, and much of the world of Silicon Valley software engineering is reactionary to IBM's glacial pace).
I'm not saying docs == code for importance is a bad way to be, just that if you can name firms that treat them that way other than IBM (or aerospace), I'd be interested to learn more.
crazygringo | 20 hours ago
What I'm saying is, you have to review code to get it out the door with a certain degree of quality. That's your core product. That's the minimum standard you have to pass, the lowest bar.
In contrast, reviewing documentation is usually less core. You do that after the code gets reviewed. If there's time. If it doesn't get done, that's not necessarily saying anything about code quality.
Even if it's easier to review documentation, that doesn't mean it's getting prioritized. So it's not a lower bar in the sense that lower bars get climbed first.
stogot | 19 hours ago
You reason in circles
darkwater | 14 hours ago
novaleaf | 20 hours ago
robotresearcher | 15 hours ago
I realize BSOD is no longer nearly as common as it once was, but let's not forget that Windows used to be very fragile indeed.
Wobbles42 | 15 hours ago
It was more robust 5 years ago than it is today.
Or at least that's been my impression. I can't back that up with hard data.
lesostep | 13 hours ago
Anecdotally, installing wrong drivers (in my case it was drivers for COM-port STM32 interaction) could make it as common as twice a day on Win11. While my windows server 2008 still doing just great, no BSOD through lifetime.
I agree that for a common user BSOD is now less likely to happen, but wonder whether it's less to do with windows core, and more with windows defender default aggressive settings
palata | 7 hours ago
What they say is that low quality in the documentation does not mean low quality in the code. Nothing says that they are related.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF | 7 hours ago
> I don't know if you are just playing devil's advocate
Indeed, that is playing Devil's Advocate but one should remember that such Advocacy is performed to make sure that arguments against the Devil are as strong as they can be. It's not straightforward to see how simply repeating an assertion helps to argue for the veracity of it.
smadge | 19 hours ago
stogot | 19 hours ago
Wobbles42 | 15 hours ago
anal_reactor | 10 hours ago
miki123211 | 8 hours ago
keithnz | 20 hours ago
lazyasciiart | 20 hours ago
anonymars | 19 hours ago
themafia | 19 hours ago
direwolf20 | 15 hours ago
themafia | 10 hours ago
Uber is a rebadged taxi service with seedier people than before.
AirBnB is a less disguised but still rebadged B&B service with seedier people than before.
Charlie Munger said it best. Cryptocurrency is like seeing a bunch of people trading turds and saying to yourself "well.. I don't want to miss out!" The seediest of all people.
AI doesn't even really exist by any common definition. They have supremely weak and power hungry language models trained on terabytes of stolen data and reddit conversations.
Hell, watching a guy hammer himself in his own nuts on youtube is an innovation, and I think I'm going to go do /that/ now instead of being depressed. Watching "ow my balls" and baitin'. What's left?
jasonvorhe | an hour ago
NoPicklez | 19 hours ago
Organizations are large, so much so that different levels of rigor across different parts of the organization. Furthermore, more rigorous controls would be applied to code than for documentation (you would assume).
anonymars | 19 hours ago
I wasn't mad, just disappointed.
efitz | 17 hours ago
Microsoft was unique among the companies I worked for in that they gave you some guidelines and then let you blog without having to go through some approval or editing process. It made blogging much more personal and organic IMO; company-curated blog posts read like marketing.
I didn’t see the original post but it looks like somebody made a bad judgment call on what to put in a company blog post (and maybe what constitutes ethical activity) and that it was taken down as soon as someone noticed.
I care much less about whether the person exercised good judgment in posting, and don’t care (and am happy) that there was not some process that would have caught it pre-publication.
I care much more if the person works in a team that believes that copyright infringement for AI training is a justifiable behavior in a corporate environment.
And now we know that is a thing, and I suspect that there will be some hard questions asked by lawyers inside the company, and perhaps by lawyers outside the company.
bastawhiz | 17 hours ago
It feels out of character for a company like Microsoft to have such a policy, but I agree that it's insanely cool that some very cool folks get to post pretty freely. Raymond Chen could NEVER run his blog like that at FAANG.
riffraff | 15 hours ago
I was/am a nobody, I have no idea how that happened and it was mind blowing that MS was interacting with me.
Arainach | 15 hours ago
Bruce Dawson was publishing debugging stories (including things debugged about Google products done as part of his job) for the entire time he was working at Google: https://randomascii.wordpress.com/
qingcharles | 15 hours ago
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/
Sophira | 15 hours ago
If you or anyone else who sees this wants to see the original post, it's still available in the Wayback Machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20260105115129/https://devblogs....
stuaxo | 8 hours ago
Copywriter aside it looks like an interesting blog post.
bryan_w | 21 hours ago
pbrum | 21 hours ago
https://archive.is/D9vEN
lukeinator42 | 21 hours ago
ed_mercer | 21 hours ago
refulgentis | 20 hours ago
dd8601fn | 20 hours ago
keithnz | 20 hours ago
verdverm | 20 hours ago
themafia | 19 hours ago
seb1204 | 35 minutes ago
Media file: https://pdst.fm/e/clrtpod.com/m/pscrb.fm/rss/p/arttrk.com/p/...
JKCalhoun | 17 hours ago
So in short, I kept my mouth shut. I assumed I would lose my job if my public comment reached the right people.
booleandilemma | 14 hours ago
seb1204 | 37 minutes ago
AlienRobot | 19 hours ago
RupertSalt | 19 hours ago
https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/web/HackernewsEffec...
basch | 18 hours ago
stogot | 17 hours ago
https://github.com/Azure-Samples/azure-sql-db-vector-search/...
andrelaszlo | 20 hours ago
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/azure-sql/?p=4796
"Build a RAG App in 5 Minutes
Ever tried setting up an Al-powered project on
Azure and felt overwhelmed? As a student or first- time user to cloud computing, I've been there too. The idea of creating a chatbot or search app using GPT sounds exciting, but the process of setting up everything right from the vector database, provisioning OpenAl models, to integrating them,
it can f..."
kQq9oHeAz6wLLS | 20 hours ago
stogot | 17 hours ago
LeoPanthera | 15 hours ago
I'm disappointed people continue to use it.
direwolf20 | 15 hours ago
rfc2324 | 21 hours ago
miffy900 | 21 hours ago
If I write an article on training an LLM on the leaked Windows XP source code, blithely mark the source code repo as in 'the public domain', but used Azure resources for the how-to steps, would that would make it OK Microsoft? You know, your Azure division might get some money...
Seriously, this is just so...blatant. It's like we've all collectively decided that copyright just doesn't matter anymore. Just readin this article, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
cookiengineer | 18 hours ago
til_something | 21 hours ago
philipwhiuk | 20 hours ago
Expulsion5491 | 20 hours ago
blibble | 20 hours ago
the merge commits in those repositories are all digitally signed by GitHub public key, so the previous history is fully authenticated and non-repudiable
so any copies now can be trivially proven to be genuine output by Microslop
hoisted by your own petard
signed merge commit is: 987eee6af61788647ae0cab82ae8a5d9402a5bd0
PGP signature (using GitHub's key: B5690EEEBB952194) is:
for posterity:
cookiengineer | 18 hours ago
The biggest irony would be if the page itself was generated by an LLM.
basch | 18 hours ago
rob_c | 20 hours ago
This however is a very, VERY poor situation when you end up placing your employer at risk because you think copyright doesn't matter and everything on the internet is fair game.
This is probably the most polite way I would describe this to most, UG. For the rest, jus stop acting like cheating through a situation to get a step up is the norm, it's just dirty behaviour.
blibble | 20 hours ago
Rowling is known for actively protecting her rights as an author, they couldn't have picked a worse author to slop up
starkeeper | 20 hours ago
throwaway150 | 19 hours ago
Archived copy: https://web.archive.org/web/20260105115129/https://devblogs....
It is very worrying that people with no ethics work for these trillion dollar companies who are supposed to be shaping the technology of tomorrow.
ribosometronome | 14 hours ago
Disrespecting the copyright on a multi-billion dollar franchise hardly comes close to the major unethical behavior the trillion dollar companies are committing.
Ekaros | 10 hours ago
bvan | 19 hours ago
ece | 19 hours ago
charcircuit | 19 hours ago
davsti4 | 18 hours ago
JB_Dev | 18 hours ago
In fact if you do this as a nonprofit or at an educational institution in a teaching context it’s explicitly allowed by fair use already.
If you do it individually, idk I’m not a lawyer. But it should be allowed on principle.
But if you then go take your trained AI and deploy it for commercial purposes that’s a different story and should have protections for the original rights holders.
protocolture | 19 hours ago
If anything Kaggle would be on the hook for including the data as CC0. Or perhaps to Shubham Maindola for uploading it. In fact the "provenance" listed would give me chills. Crazy how this got a 10.0 score. "I downloaded the ebooks of Harry Potter. Then converted them to txt files."
Thorrez | 14 hours ago
JB_Dev | 18 hours ago
But come on … these guides really are for learning purposes. Doesn’t seem like a big deal to me at all. They aren’t even hosting it, just pointing to kaggle who is hosting it.
On principle copyright law should allow this kind of learning use case anyway.
Guillaume86 | 3 hours ago
lak-102 | 18 hours ago
https://news.microsoft.com/source/2004/02/12/statement-from-...
In case the new anti-copyright Microslop memory-holes that link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20260215220230/https://news.micr...
The tutorial could have used that leaked source code for "educational purposes", as many here claim.
8cvor6j844qw_d6 | 17 hours ago
Although this seems is not reciprocal. Rule for thee, but not for me.
ozim | 14 hours ago
ErroneousBosh | 10 hours ago
waffletower | 5 hours ago
teachrdan | 4 hours ago
Microsoft has a market cap of almost $3 trillion. I think they can afford to pay for the texts they use in their AI research.
[OP] anonymous908213 | 3 hours ago
I hate the current copyright environment as much as anyone, but I do not abide double-standards, with a two-tier justice system wherein a corporation gets to freely enforce the draconian copyright regime against individuals while also getting to abuse individuals' creative works in ways much more egregious.
Guillaume86 | 3 hours ago
geldedus | 5 hours ago
ramuel | 2 hours ago