karawswanson, to ip
@karawswanson@mastodon.social avatar

just posted its for its 10th!!!! conference Nov 1-2 @MarquetteLaw For diverse scholars having a wide-ranging discussion of law & policy, be there: https://iipsj.org/programs/annual-mosaic-conference/

remixtures, to OpenAI Portuguese
@remixtures@tldr.nettime.org avatar

#OpenAI #ChatGPT #Copyright #IP #Reddit: "OpenAI, a company that has indiscriminately scraped the internet and vast amounts of knowledge and creative works created by humans to build a company valued at roughly $80 billion, has made what Reddit described as a copyright complaint against the ChatGPT subreddit because it uses OpenAI’s logo.

Moderators of the subreddit posted a screenshot of a message that they said they had received from Reddit. The message reads “Hello Mods, We have received a copyright complaint from openai.com alleging unauthorized use of their copyrighted logos in r/ChatGPT. The 'subreddit profile image' does make use of the copyrighted content, which can lead to user confusion: please address the unauthorized copyrighted elements by May 16.” The message goes on to say that the moderators need to remove the OpenAI logo from the subreddit profile and reply to Reddit confirming that the logo has been removed." https://www.404media.co/openai-files-copyright-claim-against-chatgpt-subreddit/

strypey, to ip
@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz avatar

"When Oxford University developed the vaccine AstraZeneca ended up owning... It was actually Bill Gates who lobbied Oxford... to say no, this has to be sold to a drug company'... so it becomes 'IP'... the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have been central players in ensuring that no precedent is set in the context of COVID for commercially valuable products to break the normal market-based rules on how what's called 'IP' is distributed."

#ArunKundnani, 2023

https://audioboom.com/posts/8340285

#COVID #IP

remixtures, to ip Portuguese
@remixtures@tldr.nettime.org avatar

: "2024 has been off to a busy start with the long-anticipated arrival of Mickey Mouse and Steamboat Willie in the public domain. Creators have released new games and stories, including a comic that picks up where Steamboat Willie ends. Comedian John Oliver has been showcasing a “Steamboat Mickey” mascot. CBS Sunday Morning even aired a Mickey-inspired celebration of the public domain featuring an interview with CSPD Director Jennifer Jenkins.

This is just the beginning of Mickey’s new life in the public domain. Next year, over a dozen Mickey Mouse cartoons from 1929 will join Steamboat Willie in the public domain. These cartoons continue Disney’s innovative experiments with synchronized sound and include The Karnival Kid, the first film in which Mickey speaks intelligible words. His first words? “Hot dogs! Hot dogs!”

Like other Disney works, The Karnival Kid builds upon prior public domain material. To attract an audience for Minnie Mouse’s “shimmy dancer” performance, the Karnival barker riffs on a 19th Century tune known as “the snake charmer song.” This melody has also been featured in numerous other Disney cartoons and may be familiar to readers from the scores of additional reuses in works ranging from The Simpsons to Ke$ha’s Take It Off." https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/newsletter/April2024/

remixtures, to ip Portuguese
@remixtures@tldr.nettime.org avatar

#DigitalLending #Rentism #eBooks #Libraries #Copyright #IP #BookPublishers: "Today, the Internet Archive has taken a decisive final step in our ongoing battle for libraries’ digital rights by submitting the final appellate reply brief [PDF] in Hachette v. Internet Archive, the publishers’ lawsuit against our library. This move reaffirms Internet Archive’s unwavering commitment to fulfilling our mission of providing universal access to all knowledge, even in the face of steep legal challenges." https://blog.archive.org/2024/04/19/internet-archive-stands-firm-on-library-digital-rights-in-final-brief-of-hachette-v-internet-archive-lawsuit/

European court rules drug lord Pablo Escabar's name can not be trademarked (www.reuters.com)

The name of late Colombian drug lord Pablo Escobar cannot be registered as an EU trade mark, the European Court of Justice ruled on Wednesday, after his brother tried to lay a claim.The court upheld the decision of the EU's intellectual property office (EUIPO) that refused a trade mark application by Escobar Inc. in 2022....

tomi, to ip
tallship, to fediverse

Okay I thought I'd share this recent post here on the . To give it some context, it's an answer to a common question, often a misunderstanding (even by many knowledgeable folks) as to just how we got here.

So first, the question, posed HERE.

And my answer follows below:

There's a lot of apples and oranges here. And everyone had a lot of good points made, but your question is simple, and has a very simple answer. I'll endeavor to address that directly, but do need to tend to some of what has already been said.

Scroll down to the tl;dr for the succinct answer of your question

Ethernet, ARCNET, Token Ring, Thick net (RG-59), Thin net (RG-58 A/U), and UTP (Cat 3, Cat 5, and Cat 6 unshielded twisted pair, Etc.) really have zero bearing on your question insofar as IP is concerned. All of these specifications relate to the definition of technologies that, although are indeed addressed in the OSI model which is indeed very much in use to this day,but are outside the scope of Internet Protocol. I'll come back to this in a minute.

It's quite common to say TCP/IP, but really, it's just IP. For example, we have TCP ports and we have UDP ports in firewalling. i.e., TCP is Transmission Control Protocol and handles the delivery of data in the form of packets. IP handles the routing itself so those messages can arrive to and from the end points. Uniform Data Protocol is another delivery system that does not guarantee arrival but operates on a best effort basis, while TCP is much chattier as it guarantees delivery and retransmission of missed packets - UDP is pretty efficient but in the case of say, a phone call, a packet here and there won't be missed by the human ear.

That's a very simplistic high level-view that will only stand up to the most basic of scrutiny, but this isn't a class on internetworking ;) If you just want to be able to understand conceptually, my definition will suffice.

Networking (LAN) topologies like Token Ring, ARCNET, and Ethernet aren't anywhere in the IP stack, but figure prominently in the OSI stack. I'm not going to go into the details of how these work, or the physical connection methods used like Vampire Taps, Thin net, or twisted pair with RJ-45 terminators, but their relationship will become obvious in a moment.

The OSI model unfolds like so, remember this little mnemonic to keep it straight so you always know:

> People Don't Need To See Paula Abdul

Okay, touched on already, but not really treated, is the description of that little memory aid.

> Physical, Data Link, Network, Transport, Session, Presentation, and Application layers (From bottom to top).

The physical and Data Link layers cover things like the cabling methods described above,and you're probably familiar with MAC Addresses (medium access control) on NICs (network interface controller). These correlate to the first two layers of the OSI stack, namely, the Physical (obvious - you can touch it), and the Data Link layer - how each host's NIC and switches on each LAN segment talk to each other and decide which packets are designated for whom (People Don't).

In software engineering, we're concerned mostly with the Session, Presentation, and Application layers (See Paula Abdul). Detailed explanation of these top three layers is outside the scope of this discussion.

The Beauty of the OSI model is that each layer on one host (or program) talks to exclusively with the same layer of the program or hardware on the other host it is communicating with - or so it believes it is, because, as should be obvious, is has to pass its information down the stack to the next layer below itself, and then when it arrives at the other host, it passes that information back up the stack until it reaches the very top (Abdul) of the stack - the application.

Not all communication involves all of the stacks. At the LAN (Local Area Network) level, we're mostly concerned with the Physical and Data Link layers - we're just trying to get some packet that we aren't concerned about the contents of from one box to another. But that packet probably includes information that goes all the way up the stack.

For instance, NIC #1 has the MAC: 00:b0:d0:63:c2:26 and NIC #2 has a MAC of 00:00:5e:c0:53:af. There's communication between these two NICs over the Ethernet on this LAN segment. One says I have a packet for 00:00:5e:c0:53:af and then two answers and says, "Hey that's me!" Nobody else has that address on the LAN, so they don't answer and stop listening for the payload.

Now for Internet Protocol (IP) and TCP/UDP (Transmission Control Protocol and User Datagram Protocol):

IP corresponds to Layer 3 (Need) - the Network Layer of the **OSI Model.

TCP and UDP correspond to Layer 4 (To) - the Transport Layer of the OSI model.

That covers the entire OSI model and how TCP/IP correspond to it - almost. You're not getting off that easy today.

There's actually a bit of conflation and overlapping there. Just like in real life, it's never that cut and dried. For that, we have the following excellent explanation and drill down thanks to Julia Evans:

  • Layer 2 (Don't) corresponds to Ethernet.
  • Layer 3 (Need) corresponds to IP.
  • Layer 4 (To) corresponds to TCP or UDP (or ICMP etc)
  • Layer 7 (Abdul) corresponds to whatever is inside the TCP or UDP packet (for example a DNS query)

You may wish to give her page a gander for just a bit more of a deeper dive.

Now let's talk about what might be a bit of a misconception on the part of some, or at least, a bit of a foggy conflation between that of the specification of the OSI model and a Company called Bolt Beranek & Newman (BBN) a government contractor tasked with developing the IP stack networking code.

The TCP/IP you know and depend upon today wasn't written by them, and to suggest that it was the OSI model that was scrapped instead of BBN's product is a bit of a misunderstanding. As you can see from above, the OSI model is very much alive and well, and factors into your everyday life, encompasses software development and communications, device manufacturing and engineering, as well as routing and delivery of information.

This next part is rather opinionated, and the way that many of us choose to remember our history of UNIX, the ARPANET, the NSFnet, and the Internet:

The IP stack you know and use everyday was fathered by Bill Joy, who arrived at UC Berkeley in (IIRC) 1974), created vi because ed just wasn't cutting it when he wanted a full screen editor to write Berkeley UNIX (BSD), including TCP/IP, and co-founded Sun Microsystems (SunOS / Solaris):

> Bill Joy just didn’t feel like this (the BBN code) was as efficient as he could do if he did it himself. And so Joy just rewrote it. Here the stuff was delivered to him, he said, “That’s a bunch of junk,” and he redid it. There was no debate at all. He just unilaterally redid it.

Because UNIX was hitherto an AT&T product, and because government contracting has always been rife with interminable vacillating and pontificating, BBN never actually managed to produce code for the the IP stack that could really be relied upon. In short, it kinda sucked. Bad.

I highly recommend that you take a look at this excellent resource explaining the OSI model.

tl;dr:

So! You've decided to scroll down and skip all of the other stuff to get the straight dope on the answer to your question. Here it is:

> What were the major things that caused TCP/IP to become the internet standard protocol?

The ARPANET (and where I worked, what was to become specifically the MILNET portion of that) had a mandate to replace NCP (Network Control Protocol) with IP (Internet Protocol). We did a dry run and literally over two thirds of the Internet (ARPANET) at that time disappeared, because people are lazy, software has bugs, you name it. There were lots of reasons. But that only lasted the better part of a day for the most part.

At that time the ARPANET really only consisted of Universities, big Defense contractors and U.S. Military facilities. Now, if you'll do a bit of digging around, you'll discover that there was really no such thing as NCP - that is, for the most part, what the film industry refers to as a retcon, meaning that we, as an industry, retroactively went back and came up with a way to explain away replacing a protocol that didn't really exist - a backstory, if you will. Sure, there was NCP, it was mostly a kludge of heterogeneous management and communications programs that varied from system to system, site to site, with several commonalities and inconsistencies that were hobbled together with bailing twine, coat hangers, and duct tape (for lack of a better metaphor).

So we really, really, needed something as uniform and ubiquitous as the promise that Internet Protocol would deliver. Because Bill Joy and others had done so much work at UC Berkeley, we actually had 4.1BSD (4.1a) to work with on our DEC machinery. As a junior member of my division, in both age and experience, I was given the task of, let's say throwing the switch on some of our machines, so to speak, when we cut over from the NCP spaghetti and henceforth embraced TCP/IP no matter what, on Flag Day - 01 January 1983.

So you see,the adoption of Internet Protocol was not a de facto occurrence - it was de jure, a government mandate to occur at a specific time on a specific day.

It literally had nothing to do with popularity or some kind of organic adoption, the erroneously described, so-called demise of the OSI model, or any physical network topology.

DARPA said 01 January 1983 and that's it, and that was it - Flag Day.

Sure, it took a few days for several facilities to come up (anyone not running IP was summarily and unceremoniously cut off from the ARPANET).

And one also needs to consider that it wasn't every machine - we only had some machines that were Internet hosts. We still had a lot of mainframes and mini computers, etc., that were interconnected within our facilities in a hodgepodge or some other fashion. Nowadays we have a tendency to be somewhat incredulous if every device doesn't directly connect over IP to the Internet in some way. That wasn't the case back then - you passed traffic internally, sometimes by unmounting tapes from one machine and mounting them on another.

There was a lot of hand wringing, stress, boatloads of frustration, and concern by people over keeping their jobs all over the world. But that's why and when it happened. Six months later in the UNIX portions of networks we had much greater stability with the release of 4.2BSD, but it wouldn't really be until a few years later Net2 was released that things settled down with the virtually flawless networking stability that we enjoy today.

Enjoy!

.

tallship, to fediverse

The question posed was:

What were the major things that caused TCP/IP to become the internet standard protocol?

This had to be addressed, with so many people piling on and choosing that the OSI model was replaced by TCP/IP because it worked better and increased in popularity

Nothing could be further from the truth.

https://public.mitra.social/users/tallshiptallship wrote the following post Sat, 13 Apr 2024 17:34:29 +0000

DARPA Logo Defense Advanced Projects Administration
Okay I thought I'd share this recent post here on the . To give it some context, it's an answer to a common question, often a misunderstanding (even by many knowledgeable folks) as to just how we got here.

So first, the question, posed HERE.

And my answer follows below:

There's a lot of apples and oranges here. And everyone had a lot of good points made, but your question is simple, and has a very simple answer. I'll endeavor to address that directly, but do need to tend to some of what has already been said.

Scroll down to the tl;dr for the succinct answer of your question

Ethernet, ARCNET, Token Ring, Thick net (RG-59), Thin net (RG-58 A/U), and UTP (Cat 3, Cat 5, and Cat 6 unshielded twisted pair, Etc.) really have zero bearing on your question insofar as IP is concerned. All of these specifications relate to the definition of technologies that, although are indeed addressed in the OSI model which is indeed very much in use to this day,but are outside the scope of Internet Protocol. I'll come back to this in a minute.

It's quite common to say TCP/IP, but really, it's just IP. For example, we have TCP ports and we have UDP ports in firewalling. i.e., TCP is Transmission Control Protocol and handles the delivery of data in the form of packets. IP handles the routing itself so those messages can arrive to and from the end points. Uniform Data Protocol is another delivery system that does not guarantee arrival but operates on a best effort basis, while TCP is much chattier as it guarantees delivery and retransmission of missed packets - UDP is pretty efficient but in the case of say, a phone call, a packet here and there won't be missed by the human ear.

That's a very simplistic high level-view that will only stand up to the most basic of scrutiny, but this isn't a class on internetworking ;) If you just want to be able to understand conceptually, my definition will suffice.

Networking (LAN) topologies like Token Ring, ARCNET, and Ethernet aren't anywhere in the IP stack, but figure prominently in the OSI stack. I'm not going to go into the details of how these work, or the physical connection methods used like Vampire Taps, Thin net, or twisted pair with RJ-45 terminators, but their relationship will become obvious in a moment.

The OSI model unfolds like so, remember this little mnemonic to keep it straight so you always know:

> People Don't Need To See Paula Abdul

Okay, touched on already, but not really treated, is the description of that little memory aid.

> Physical, Data Link, Network, Transport, Session, Presentation, and Application layers (From bottom to top).

The physical and Data Link layers cover things like the cabling methods described above,and you're probably familiar with MAC Addresses (medium access control) on NICs (network interface controller). These correlate to the first two layers of the OSI stack, namely, the Physical (obvious - you can touch it), and the Data Link layer - how each host's NIC and switches on each LAN segment talk to each other and decide which packets are designated for whom (People Don't).

In software engineering, we're concerned mostly with the Session, Presentation, and Application layers (See Paula Abdul). Detailed explanation of these top three layers is outside the scope of this discussion.

The Beauty of the OSI model is that each layer on one host (or program) talks to exclusively with the same layer of the program or hardware on the other host it is communicating with - or so it believes it is, because, as should be obvious, is has to pass its information down the stack to the next layer below itself, and then when it arrives at the other host, it passes that information back up the stack until it reaches the very top (Abdul) of the stack - the application.

Not all communication involves all of the stacks. At the LAN (Local Area Network) level, we're mostly concerned with the Physical and Data Link layers - we're just trying to get some packet that we aren't concerned about the contents of from one box to another. But that packet probably includes information that goes all the way up the stack.

For instance, NIC #1 has the MAC: 00:b0:d0:63:c2:26 and NIC #2 has a MAC of 00:00:5e:c0:53:af. There's communication between these two NICs over the Ethernet on this LAN segment. One says I have a packet for 00:00:5e:c0:53:af and then two answers and says, "Hey that's me!" Nobody else has that address on the LAN, so they don't answer and stop listening for the payload.

Now for Internet Protocol (IP) and TCP/UDP (Transmission Control Protocol and User Datagram Protocol):

IP corresponds to Layer 3 (Need) - the Network Layer of the **OSI Model.

TCP and UDP correspond to Layer 4 (To) - the Transport Layer of the OSI model.

That covers the entire OSI model and how TCP/IP correspond to it - almost. You're not getting off that easy today.

There's actually a bit of conflation and overlapping there. Just like in real life, it's never that cut and dried. For that, we have the following excellent explanation and drill down thanks to Julia Evans:

  • Layer 2 (Don't) corresponds to Ethernet.
  • Layer 3 (Need) corresponds to IP.
  • Layer 4 (To) corresponds to TCP or UDP (or ICMP etc)
  • Layer 7 (Abdul) corresponds to whatever is inside the TCP or UDP packet (for example a DNS query)

You may wish to give her page a gander for just a bit more of a deeper dive.

Now let's talk about what might be a bit of a misconception on the part of some, or at least, a bit of a foggy conflation between that of the specification of the OSI model and a Company called Bolt Beranek & Newman (BBN) a government contractor tasked with developing the IP stack networking code.

The TCP/IP you know and depend upon today wasn't written by them, and to suggest that it was the OSI model that was scrapped instead of BBN's product is a bit of a misunderstanding. As you can see from above, the OSI model is very much alive and well, and factors into your everyday life, encompasses software development and communications, device manufacturing and engineering, as well as routing and delivery of information.

This next part is rather opinionated, and the way that many of us choose to remember our history of UNIX, the ARPANET, the NSFnet, and the Internet:

The IP stack you know and use everyday was fathered by Bill Joy, who arrived at UC Berkeley in (IIRC) 1974), created vi because ed just wasn't cutting it when he wanted a full screen editor to write Berkeley UNIX (BSD), including TCP/IP, and co-founded Sun Microsystems (SunOS / Solaris):

> Bill Joy just didn’t feel like this (the BBN code) was as efficient as he could do if he did it himself. And so Joy just rewrote it. Here the stuff was delivered to him, he said, “That’s a bunch of junk,” and he redid it. There was no debate at all. He just unilaterally redid it.

Because UNIX was hitherto an AT&T product, and because government contracting has always been rife with interminable vacillating and pontificating, BBN never actually managed to produce code for the the IP stack that could really be relied upon. In short, it kinda sucked. Bad.

I highly recommend that you take a look at this excellent resource explaining the OSI model.

tl;dr:

So! You've decided to scroll down and skip all of the other stuff to get the straight dope on the answer to your question. Here it is:

> What were the major things that caused TCP/IP to become the internet standard protocol?

The ARPANET (and where I worked, what was to become specifically the MILNET portion of that) had a mandate to replace NCP (Network Control Protocol) with IP (Internet Protocol). We did a dry run and literally over two thirds of the Internet (ARPANET) at that time disappeared, because people are lazy, software has bugs, you name it. There were lots of reasons. But that only lasted the better part of a day for the most part.

At that time the ARPANET really only consisted of Universities, big Defense contractors and U.S. Military facilities. Now, if you'll do a bit of digging around, you'll discover that there was really no such thing as NCP - that is, for the most part, what the film industry refers to as a retcon, meaning that we, as an industry, retroactively went back and came up with a way to explain away replacing a protocol that didn't really exist - a backstory, if you will. Sure, there was NCP, it was mostly a kludge of heterogeneous management and communications programs that varied from system to system, site to site, with several commonalities and inconsistencies that were hobbled together with bailing twine, coat hangers, and duct tape (for lack of a better metaphor).

So we really, really, needed something as uniform and ubiquitous as the promise that Internet Protocol would deliver. Because Bill Joy and others had done so much work at UC Berkeley, we actually had 4.1BSD (4.1a) to work with on our DEC machinery. As a junior member of my division, in both age and experience, I was given the task of, let's say throwing the switch on some of our machines, so to speak, when we cut over from the NCP spaghetti and henceforth embraced TCP/IP no matter what, on Flag Day - 01 January 1983.

So you see,the adoption of Internet Protocol was not a de facto occurrence - it was de jure, a government mandate to occur at a specific time on a specific day.

It literally had nothing to do with popularity or some kind of organic adoption, the erroneously described, so-called demise of the OSI model, or any physical network topology.

DARPA said 01 January 1983 and that's it, and that was it - Flag Day.

Sure, it took a few days for several facilities to come up (anyone not running IP was summarily and unceremoniously cut off from the ARPANET).

And one also needs to consider that it wasn't every machine - we only had some machines that were Internet hosts. We still had a lot of mainframes and mini computers, etc., that were interconnected within our facilities in a hodgepodge or some other fashion. Nowadays we have a tendency to be somewhat incredulous if every device doesn't directly connect over IP to the Internet in some way. That wasn't the case back then - you passed traffic internally, sometimes by unmounting tapes from one machine and mounting them on another.

There was a lot of hand wringing, stress, boatloads of frustration, and concern by people over keeping their jobs all over the world. But that's why and when it happened. Six months later in the UNIX portions of networks we had much greater stability with the release of 4.2BSD, but it wouldn't really be until a few years later Net2 was released that things settled down with the virtually flawless networking stability that we enjoy today.

Enjoy!

.

guyjantic, to ip
@guyjantic@c.im avatar

I own the for the lectures I give to college students, but for some reason the has not yet contacted me with offers to prosecute anyone recording all or portions of my lectures without my written permission. I'm seriously considering putting an FBI warning at the beginning of every lecture. I think it might start good conversations about whose interests the cops choose to protect in American society.

jonathanmatthews, to AWS
@jonathanmatthews@fosstodon.org avatar

Just a brief reminder that every VM/container/etc you give a public address to now costs you $3.65/month more than in 2023. AWS charges per IP-address per-hour.

gulovsen, to Law
@gulovsen@mastodon.social avatar

This may seem obvious, but just in case...

Never enter any information that would qualify as a trade secret into an AI chat bot, regardless of what the terms of service of the chat bot provides.

nikita, to tiktoks German
@nikita@social.tchncs.de avatar

#TikToks Daten-Dilemma: Zwischen Innovation u. Überwachung..

.. Datenstaubsauger biblischen Ausmaßes“, der nicht nur auf Basis von Geräte- und Netzwerkinformationen, sondern auch über #SIM-Karten u #IP-Adressen Standortdaten seiner Nutzer sammelt.

https://www.mimikama.org/tiktoks-daten-dilemma-innovation-und-ueberwachung/?pk_campaign=feed&pk_kwd=tiktoks-daten-dilemma-innovation-und-ueberwachung

matt, to apple

Since when has revealed the sender's address in the email headers?!

Just seen this in an email I sent to myself from a account I manage with Apple Mail for example:

Received: from smtpclient.apple ([<MY_IP_ADDRESS>]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id

I have confirmed it on another email I received from someone, apparently, using Apple Mail with their Dreamhost account.

Seems like a concern to me!

karawswanson, to ip
@karawswanson@mastodon.social avatar

Time to register for , happening in June @ ! Best interdisciplinary & international conf. @histodons https://www.bu.edu/law/engagements/intellectual-property-and-the-anthropocene/

retiolus, to ip Catalan
@retiolus@mamot.fr avatar
lina, to ip
@lina@neuromatch.social avatar

lmao. I got a DMCA takedown notice for my Colordle game yesterday ( https://colordle.lina.garden ), along with everyone else who forked the Reactle repo. today 404 is reporting on how bullshit it is! 🤣🖕

https://www.404media.co/nytimes-files-copyright-takedowns-against-hundreds-of-wordle-clones/

#dmca #ip #Wordle #nyt #copyright

metin, (edited ) to ai
@metin@graphics.social avatar

Just spent at least two hours deleting all of my work from Tumblr, before their AI scraping shit hits the fan, although it's probably too late. In that case, the deletion functions as a gesture of protest.

This shameless large-scale intellectual property theft by greedy tech business assholes everywhere is starting to make the internet pretty annoying. 😖

remixtures, to ai Portuguese
@remixtures@tldr.nettime.org avatar

: "A lot of early AI research was done in an academic setting; the law specifically mentions teaching, scholarship, and research as examples of fair use. As a result, the machine-learning community has traditionally taken a relaxed attitude toward copyright. Early training sets frequently included copyrighted material.

As academic researchers took jobs in the burgeoning commercial AI sector, many assumed they would continue to enjoy wide latitude to train on copyrighted material. Some feel blindsided by copyright holders’ demands for cash.

“We all learn for free,” Daniel Jeffries wrote in his tweet summing up the view of many in the AI community. “We learn from the world around us and so do machines.”

The argument seems to be that if it’s legal for a human being to learn from one copyrighted book, it must also be legal for a large language model to learn from a million copyrighted books—even if the training process requires making copies of the books.

As MP3.com and Texaco learned, this isn't always true. A use that’s fair at a small scale can be unfair when it’s scaled up and commercialized.

But AI advocates like Jeffries are right that sometimes it is true. There are cases where courts have held that bulk technological uses of copyrighted works are fair use. The most important example is almost certainly the Google Books case."

https://www.understandingai.org/p/the-ai-community-needs-to-take-copyright

drrimmer, to ip
@drrimmer@aus.social avatar

'International talks aimed at creating a treaty to prevent another COVID-19 catastrophe are nearing collapse. This impasse is due to the refusal of countries such as the US, Canada, and Germany to compromise on Big Pharma’s intellectual property rights.' https://jacobin.com/2024/02/pandemic-treaty-intellectual-property-big-pharma

remixtures, to ai Portuguese
@remixtures@tldr.nettime.org avatar

#AI #GenerativeAI #OpenAI #Midjourney #GeneraredImages #Copyright #IP: "It seems all but certain that generative AI developers like OpenAI and Midjourney have trained their image-generation systems on copyrighted materials. Neither company has been transparent about this; Midjourney went so far as to ban us three times for investigating the nature of their training materials.

Both OpenAI and Midjourney are fully capable of producing materials that appear to infringe on copyright and trademarks. These systems do not inform users when they do so. They do not provide any information about the provenance of the images they produce. Users may not know, when they produce an image, whether they are infringing.

Unless and until someone comes up with a technical solution that will either accurately report provenance or automatically filter out the vast majority of copyright violations, the only ethical solution is for generative AI systems to limit their training to data they have properly licensed. Image-generating systems should be required to license the art used for training, just as streaming services are required to license their music and video."

https://spectrum.ieee.org/midjourney-copyright

karawswanson, to ip
@karawswanson@mastodon.social avatar

And the Handbook of & Social Justice is launched! Thanks to editors LMtima & SJamar (@HowardLaw) & so many great contributors.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-intellectual-property-and-social-justice/981BDAF47503507CCB43ED96FDFADF1A

cdarwin, to ip
@cdarwin@c.im avatar

@pluralistic

The world's wealthy nations bargain to drop trade restrictions on the Global South in exchange for #IP laws.
https://mamot.fr/@pluralistic/111891052667139537

marquisdegeek, to ip
@marquisdegeek@ohai.social avatar

In just over a week, #FOSDEM gets its first magic show!

And it's by yours truly, talking about the parallels of #IP in #FLOSS and #Magic

Plus, it's on the main stage, so there'll be plenty of seats :)

#opensource

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • JUstTest
  • mdbf
  • InstantRegret
  • ethstaker
  • magazineikmin
  • GTA5RPClips
  • rosin
  • modclub
  • Youngstown
  • ngwrru68w68
  • slotface
  • osvaldo12
  • kavyap
  • DreamBathrooms
  • Leos
  • thenastyranch
  • everett
  • cubers
  • cisconetworking
  • normalnudes
  • Durango
  • anitta
  • khanakhh
  • tacticalgear
  • tester
  • provamag3
  • megavids
  • lostlight
  • All magazines