Stories with Tag Copyright

• The Book (2021)

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-03-28 16:39:10

  Verbose tl;dr

  "The Book" (2021) podcast episode from 99% Invisible explores the history and cultural impact of The Real Book, a collection of illegally transcribed jazz lead sheets. Starting in the 1970s, this crowdsourced anthology became ubiquitous among jazz musicians, providing readily available arrangements of standards and lesser-known tunes. While copyright infringement plagued its existence, The Real Book democratized access to a vast musical repertoire, fostering improvisation, education, and the evolution of jazz. The episode examines the legal grey areas, the dedication of those who compiled and distributed the book, and its enduring influence on generations of musicians despite the eventual availability of legal alternatives.

  The 99% Invisible episode, "The Real Book," delves into the fascinating and complex history of The Real Book, not a singular, officially published volume, but a series of illicitly compiled and distributed anthologies of jazz lead sheets – simplified musical scores containing melody, harmony, and lyrics. The episode meticulously traces the genesis of these clandestine collections back to the 1970s, a period where obtaining accurate transcriptions of popular jazz standards was a significant challenge for aspiring musicians.

  It elaborates on the painstaking process undertaken by a collective of Berklee College of Music students, who, driven by a shared passion for jazz and a desire for accessible learning materials, embarked upon the ambitious project of transcribing popular jazz compositions by ear. These transcriptions, often derived from recordings rather than official sheet music, were subsequently collated and photocopied, resulting in the first iterations of The Real Book. The episode underscores the collaborative and somewhat rebellious nature of this undertaking, highlighting the fact that these books were created without official permission from copyright holders, existing in a legal gray area for decades.

  The podcast meticulously explores the multifaceted impact of The Real Book on the jazz world. It acknowledges the book's undeniable contribution to the dissemination and preservation of jazz standards, providing generations of musicians with invaluable access to a wide repertoire. It also analyzes how the readily available, simplified arrangements within The Real Book influenced the way jazz was learned and performed, potentially leading to a homogenization of playing styles and a decreased emphasis on individual interpretation and improvisation. The episode grapples with the ethical complexities surrounding copyright infringement and the delicate balance between accessibility and artistic ownership, presenting the varied perspectives of musicians, publishers, and legal experts.

  Furthermore, the episode discusses the evolution of The Real Book over time, from its rudimentary, hand-copied origins to later, more refined editions featuring improved accuracy and a broader selection of tunes. It touches upon the various legal challenges faced by the creators and distributors of these unauthorized compilations, and the eventual emergence of legally sanctioned versions of The Real Book that sought to address copyright concerns. The narrative also considers the impact of digital technology on the distribution and accessibility of sheet music, and how this has impacted the continued relevance of The Real Book in the 21st century. Finally, the episode concludes by reflecting on the enduring legacy of The Real Book, acknowledging its complex and often contradictory role in shaping the landscape of jazz music and education.

  • Jazz
  • Music
  • fake book
  • real book
  • sheet music
  • Copyright
  • improvisation
  • lead sheets
  • Chuck Sher
  • history of jazz
  • jazz standards
  • musical notation
  • DIY
  • Underground
  • Community
  • Musicians
  • performance
  • transcription
  • arrangement

  Summary of Comments ( 1 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43507404

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discuss the ubiquity and impact of The Real Book, a collection of illegal jazz lead sheets. Commenters share anecdotes of its use in learning, performing, and teaching jazz, highlighting its role as a shared resource and common language among musicians. Some debate the ethics of its copyright-infringing nature, acknowledging the creators' lost revenue but also the book's contribution to jazz accessibility. The discussion also touches on the evolution of "fake books," the challenges of transcribing complex improvisations, and the book's occasional inaccuracies, with some commenters recommending newer, legal alternatives. Others share specific memories associated with The Real Book and its importance in their musical journeys. The practicality of the book, particularly its portability and spiral binding, is also praised.

  The Hacker News post titled "The Book (2021)" linking to a 99% Invisible podcast episode about "The Real Book" has generated several comments. Many discuss their personal experiences and perspectives related to the Real Book.

  Several commenters reminisce about their own usage of the Real Book. One shares a story about using a spiral-bound version during their high school jazz band days, highlighting its prevalence and importance for learning jazz standards. Another recounts using a legal-sized version, noting the inconvenience but acknowledging its comprehensive nature. Others mention their experiences with different editions and formats of the book, showcasing its evolving nature over the years. The difficulties of sight-reading complex arrangements are also touched upon.

  The legality and copyright issues surrounding the Real Book are a recurring theme. Some commenters discuss the ethical implications of using unauthorized copies and the challenges musicians faced before legal versions became available. The transition from hand-copied versions to printed and later digital copies is also mentioned, reflecting the book's evolution alongside technological advancements. One user points out the irony of musicians relying on an illegal resource while simultaneously advocating for stronger copyright protections for their own work. The discussion touches upon the complexities of copyright in the context of jazz, where improvisation and interpretation are key elements.

  A few commenters delve into the musical aspects of the Real Book, discussing specific tunes and the challenges they present. The importance of transcribing solos and the role of the Real Book in learning jazz harmony and improvisation are highlighted. The curated nature of the collection and the inclusion of different styles and composers are also mentioned.

  The conversation extends to alternative resources for learning jazz standards, including other fake books, online databases, and legal sheet music sources. The availability and accessibility of these resources are discussed, contrasting them with the Real Book's historical significance and continued popularity. One commenter specifically suggests the iReal Pro app as a modern, legal, and highly functional alternative.

  The lack of composer royalties is mentioned again, with one commenter pondering on the potential lost earnings for composers due to the widespread unauthorized use of the Real Book. The discussion touches upon the balance between accessibility for musicians and fair compensation for creators.

  Overall, the comments section provides a rich tapestry of personal experiences, ethical considerations, and musical insights related to the Real Book, reflecting its enduring influence on the jazz community.

• US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-03-18 18:17:33

  Verbose tl;dr

  A US appeals court upheld a ruling that AI-generated artwork cannot be copyrighted. The court affirmed that copyright protection requires human authorship, and since AI systems lack the necessary human creativity and intent, their output cannot be registered. This decision reinforces the existing legal framework for copyright and clarifies its application to works generated by artificial intelligence.

  In a landmark decision that reverberates throughout the burgeoning field of artificial intelligence and its intersection with intellectual property law, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has affirmed a lower court's ruling, thereby solidifying the legal precedent that artistic creations generated solely by autonomous artificial intelligence systems are not eligible for copyright protection. The case, centered around computer scientist Stephen Thaler's attempt to secure copyright for an image produced by his "Creativity Machine" algorithm, hinges on the fundamental principle that copyright protection, as enshrined in U.S. law, necessitates a demonstrably human element in the creative process. The court, in its meticulously reasoned opinion, elaborated on the longstanding requirement of human authorship as a cornerstone of copyright, tracing this principle back to Constitutional foundations and centuries of legal interpretation. It underscored that copyright law, by its very nature, is designed to protect the fruits of human intellectual labor, and that extending such protection to the output of machines, however sophisticated or seemingly creative, would represent a significant departure from this established legal framework.

  The court meticulously dissected Thaler's arguments, ultimately concluding that the absence of any human involvement in the selection of the artwork's final form rendered it ineligible for copyright. While acknowledging the transformative potential of AI in various creative domains, the court emphasized that the current legal landscape unequivocally demands human authorship as a prerequisite for copyright protection. This ruling holds significant implications for the evolving relationship between artificial intelligence and creative endeavors, setting a clear precedent that, at least for now, copyright law's protective umbrella does not extend to works generated solely by machines, irrespective of their artistic merit or complexity. The decision leaves open the possibility of future legislative action to address the evolving challenges posed by AI-generated art, but as it currently stands, the human element remains an indispensable ingredient for copyright eligibility in the United States.

  • artificial intelligence
  • AI
  • Copyright
  • Law
  • Intellectual Property
  • US Court of Appeals
  • art
  • Technology
  • legal
  • ruling
  • Generative AI
  • AI Art
  • Authorship
  • creative works
  • digital art

  Summary of Comments ( 308 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43402790

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters largely agree with the court's decision that AI-generated art, lacking human authorship, cannot be copyrighted. Several point out that copyright is designed to protect the creative output of people, and that extending it to AI outputs raises complex questions about ownership and incentivization. Some highlight the potential for abuse if corporations could copyright outputs from models they trained on publicly available data. The discussion also touches on the distinction between using AI as a tool, akin to Photoshop, versus fully autonomous creation, with the former potentially warranting copyright protection for the human's creative input. A few express concern about the chilling effect on AI art development, but others argue that open-source models and alternative licensing schemes could mitigate this. A recurring theme is the need for new legal frameworks better suited to AI-generated content.

  The Hacker News post titled "US appeals court rules AI generated art cannot be copyrighted" (linking to a Reuters article about the same topic) has generated a robust discussion with a variety of viewpoints. Several commenters delve into the nuances of copyright law and the implications of this ruling.

  A prominent thread discusses the distinction between "authorship" and "ownership." Some argue that while AI cannot be an author in the legal sense, the person who prompts or directs the AI could be considered the author, analogous to a photographer directing a model or a director guiding actors. This line of reasoning suggests that copyright should protect the creative effort involved in prompt engineering and curation, rather than the AI's output itself. Others disagree, asserting that the level of human input in AI art generation is often too minimal to warrant authorship. They believe that if the AI is doing the bulk of the creative work, copyright protection is not appropriate.

  Another significant point of discussion revolves around the "idea-expression dichotomy" in copyright law. This principle states that copyright protects the specific expression of an idea, but not the idea itself. Some commenters argue that AI-generated art often falls into the realm of ideas rather than expression, meaning it should not be copyrightable. They draw comparisons to mathematical formulas or scientific discoveries, which are also not copyrightable.

  Several users express concern about the potential chilling effect this ruling could have on AI art development. They worry that without copyright protection, artists and developers will be less incentivized to create and innovate in this space. Counterarguments suggest that open-source models and collaborative development could flourish in the absence of restrictive copyright.

  The definition of "human authorship" is also a recurring theme. Commenters debate what level of human involvement is required for a work to be considered authored by a human. Some suggest a spectrum of human input, ranging from simple prompts to extensive editing and manipulation of the AI's output. The question of where to draw the line for copyright eligibility remains open.

  Finally, some comments focus on the practical implications of the ruling. They discuss the challenges of enforcing copyright on AI-generated art, given the difficulty in tracing its origin and proving authorship. The potential for widespread copying and derivative works is also raised.

  Overall, the comments on Hacker News reflect a complex and evolving understanding of copyright law in the context of AI-generated art. There is no clear consensus, but the discussion highlights important legal, ethical, and practical considerations that will need to be addressed as AI technology continues to advance.

• Google does not want rights to things you do using Chrome (2008)

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-03-01 08:38:12

  Verbose tl;dr

  In 2008, amidst controversy surrounding its initial Chrome End User License Agreement (EULA), Google clarified that the license only applied to Chrome itself, not to user-generated content created using Chrome. Matt Cutts explained that the broad language in the original EULA was standard boilerplate, intended for protecting Google's intellectual property within the browser, not claiming ownership over user data. The company quickly revised the EULA to eliminate ambiguity and explicitly state that Google claims no rights to user content created with Chrome. This addressed concerns about Google overreaching and reassured users that their work remained their own.

  In a 2008 blog post titled "Google does not want rights to things you do using Chrome," former Google engineer Matt Cutts addresses concerns and misconceptions surrounding the initial version of the Google Chrome end-user license agreement (EULA). The controversy stemmed from language within the EULA that seemed to grant Google broad rights over user-generated content created or transmitted through the Chrome browser. This language, as Cutts meticulously explains, was unintentionally borrowed from other Google services and was not reflective of Google's intentions regarding Chrome usage.

  Cutts emphasizes that Google never desired or intended to claim ownership or control over content created by users while using the Chrome browser. He clarifies that the problematic clause was standard boilerplate language included in other Google product EULAs, particularly those related to services where user-generated content is a core component, such as Gmail or Google Docs. In those contexts, the clause serves to grant Google the limited licenses necessary to operate the service, for instance, allowing Google to transmit an email or display a document. However, applying this same language to the Chrome browser created the erroneous impression that Google sought similar rights over all content interacted with via the browser, including content created on third-party websites.

  The blog post details how the initial Chrome EULA caused understandable confusion and alarm among users and legal experts. Cutts acknowledges the seriousness of the issue and underscores Google's swift action to rectify the situation. He explains that Google promptly revised the Chrome EULA to eliminate the ambiguous language and clearly delineate that Google makes no claims whatsoever over user-generated content accessed or transmitted through Chrome. He further emphasizes that Google's sole interest is in providing a high-quality browsing experience and that the company has no desire to control or profit from user-created content viewed or transmitted through the browser. Cutts reinforces that the revised EULA accurately reflects Google's intentions from the outset and apologizes for the initial oversight and any resulting anxieties. He concludes by reiterating Google's commitment to user privacy and responsible data handling.

  • Google
  • chrome
  • License
  • Intellectual Property
  • Copyright
  • browser
  • Software
  • User Rights
  • 2008
  • Matt Cutts
  • Web History
  • privacy

  Summary of Comments ( 16 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43217309

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters in 2023 discuss Matt Cutts' 2008 blog post clarifying Google's Chrome license agreement. Several express skepticism of Google, pointing out that the license has changed since the post and that Google's data collection practices are extensive regardless. Some commenters suggest the original concern arose from a misunderstanding of legalese surrounding granting a license to use software versus a license to user-created content. Others mention that granting a license to "sync" data is distinct from other usage and requires its own scrutiny. A few commenters reflect on the relative naivety of concerns about data privacy in 2008 compared to the present day, where such concerns are much more widespread. The discussion ultimately highlights the evolution of public perception regarding online privacy and the persistent distrust of large tech companies like Google.

  The Hacker News post discussing Matt Cutts' clarification on the Google Chrome license agreement from 2008 has a substantial number of comments, many of which delve into the nuances of software licensing and the concerns surrounding Google's data collection practices.

  Several commenters express skepticism about Google's motivations, despite Cutts' explanation. They argue that while the license agreement might not grant Google explicit rights to user-created content, Google still collects vast amounts of user data through Chrome and other services. This data collection, they contend, is the real concern, regardless of the specifics of the license agreement. They see the license clarification as a way to address a specific criticism without acknowledging the broader issue of data privacy.

  Some comments highlight the distinction between the Chrome license agreement and Google's terms of service. They point out that the terms of service, which users agree to when using Google's services, likely grant Google broader rights to user data. This distinction is crucial, they argue, because users might be misled into thinking the Chrome license agreement covers all of Google's data practices.

  A few commenters offer more technical analyses of the license agreement itself. They discuss the specific clauses and compare them to other software licenses. These comments provide a deeper understanding of the legal implications of the agreement.

  Some commenters draw parallels to other Google products and services, noting how Google has handled user data in those contexts. They use these past practices to support their skepticism about Google's current assurances.

  There's also a thread discussing the importance of open-source software and how it provides greater transparency and control to users. These comments suggest that using open-source browsers might be a better option for users concerned about data privacy.

  Finally, a few commenters express a general distrust of large tech companies and their data collection practices. They see the Chrome license agreement controversy as another example of how these companies prioritize profit over user privacy.

  Overall, the comments reflect a complex and nuanced understanding of the issues surrounding software licensing and data privacy. While some commenters accept Cutts' explanation, many remain skeptical and express deeper concerns about Google's overall approach to user data. The discussion highlights the importance of carefully reviewing software licenses and understanding the implications of using online services.

• Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-21 10:01:36

  Verbose tl;dr

  Meta is arguing that its platform hosting pirated books isn't illegal because they claim there's no evidence they're "seeding" (actively uploading and distributing) the copyrighted material. They contend they're merely "leeching" (downloading), which they argue isn't copyright infringement. This defense comes as publishers sue Meta for hosting and facilitating access to vast quantities of pirated books on platforms like Facebook and Instagram, claiming significant financial harm. Meta asserts that publishers haven't demonstrated that the company is contributing to the distribution of the infringing content beyond simply allowing users to access it.

  In a recent legal dispute detailed by Ars Technica, Meta Platforms, Inc., the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, has presented a novel defense against allegations of copyright infringement related to the widespread availability of pirated books on its platforms. The company's argument centers on the distinction between "seeding" and "leeching" in the context of BitTorrent file-sharing. Meta contends that while their platforms might technically facilitate access to copyrighted materials through torrent files, they do not actively participate in the distribution, or "seeding," of these files. Instead, they argue that their role is limited to passive "leeching," which they portray as merely accessing and downloading the files for their own use, analogous to an individual downloading a file from a website.

  Meta's legal team posits that the act of merely providing a link to a torrent file, without engaging in the active uploading and sharing of the file's contents – the defining characteristic of seeding – does not constitute copyright infringement. They further assert that the plaintiffs, representing the rights holders of the copyrighted books, have failed to provide concrete evidence demonstrating that Meta's platforms actively engage in seeding activities. This lack of proof, they argue, invalidates the infringement claim. The company seemingly seeks to establish a precedent where merely facilitating access to torrent files, without demonstrable proof of seeding, is insufficient to establish liability for copyright infringement. This defense strategy represents a significant legal maneuver with potential implications for the future of copyright enforcement in the digital realm, especially considering the scale and reach of Meta's platforms. The article by Ars Technica highlights the complexity of applying existing copyright law to the evolving landscape of online file-sharing and the nuanced technical distinctions between different modes of participation within peer-to-peer networks like BitTorrent. The outcome of this legal battle could significantly impact how online platforms are held responsible for the dissemination of copyrighted materials on their services.

  • Meta
  • Facebook
  • Copyright
  • Piracy
  • Torrenting
  • Book Piracy
  • Digital Piracy
  • Seeding
  • Leeching
  • Fair Use
  • DMCA
  • Copyright Infringement
  • Intellectual Property
  • Lawsuit
  • legal
  • Technology
  • Internet
  • Ars Technica

  Summary of Comments ( 343 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43125840

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discuss Meta's defense against accusations of book piracy, with many expressing skepticism towards Meta's "we're just a leech" argument. Several commenters point out the flaw in this logic, arguing that downloading constitutes an implicit form of seeding, as portions of the file are often shared with other peers during the download process. Others highlight the potential hypocrisy of Meta's position, given their aggressive stance against copyright infringement on their own platforms. Some users also question the article's interpretation of the legal arguments, and suggest that Meta's stance may be more nuanced than portrayed. A few commenters draw parallels to previous piracy cases involving other companies. Overall, the consensus leans towards disbelief in Meta's defense and anticipates further legal challenges.

  The Hacker News post "Meta claims torrenting pirated books isn't illegal without proof of seeding" sparked a discussion with several comments focusing on the legal intricacies of torrenting and Meta's defense.

  Several commenters debated the specifics of copyright law and torrenting. Some argued that downloading copyrighted material, even without seeding, constitutes infringement, while others highlighted the importance of proving distribution (seeding) for a successful copyright claim. One commenter suggested that the legal definition of "distribution" might vary, depending on the jurisdiction and specific details of the case. Another pointed out that even if downloading is technically illegal, enforcement is often focused on those who upload (seed) the material. The discussion delved into the technicalities of how torrents work, with some explaining that downloading inherently involves uploading pieces of the file to other users in the swarm, blurring the line between downloading and distributing.

  A significant part of the conversation revolved around Meta's stance and potential motivations. Some commenters speculated that Meta was strategically trying to avoid setting a precedent that could affect its other platforms, like Facebook and Instagram, where users share copyrighted material. Others were critical of Meta's legal strategy, suggesting they were misrepresenting the law or engaging in a cynical defense tactic. Some users expressed skepticism about Meta's claim of ignorance regarding the infringing nature of the content, pointing to the potential for automated content recognition systems.

  Several comments also touched on the broader implications of copyright law and the challenges of enforcing it in the digital age. The discussion highlighted the difficulty of balancing the rights of copyright holders with the realities of online content sharing. One commenter expressed concern about the chilling effect of aggressive copyright enforcement on legitimate uses of copyrighted material. Another discussed the potential for abuse of copyright claims by large corporations.

  Finally, some commenters shared their personal experiences with torrenting and copyright issues. One user mentioned receiving a DMCA notice for downloading a Linux distribution via torrent, illustrating the complexities and sometimes unintended consequences of copyright enforcement. Another shared an anecdote about the difficulties faced by creators in protecting their work online.

  The comments overall reflect a nuanced understanding of the complex issues surrounding copyright, torrenting, and Meta's role in the digital ecosystem. They demonstrate a range of perspectives on the legal and ethical dimensions of the case, highlighting the ongoing debate about balancing copyright protection with access to information in the digital age.

• Nintendo Obtains New Anti-Palworld Patent and Seeks Even More

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-15 15:35:02

  Verbose tl;dr

  Nintendo has been granted a new patent related to its free-to-play mobile game, Pokémon GO, which strengthens their case against the upcoming monster-collecting game, Palworld. This patent covers specific gameplay mechanics related to location-based creature encounters and capturing. While the original lawsuit against Palworld's developer, Pocketpair, focused on similarities in character design and overall gameplay concepts, this new patent provides more concrete grounds for infringement claims. Nintendo is also actively pursuing further patents related to Pokémon GO, suggesting a continued aggressive stance in protecting their intellectual property and potentially strengthening their legal battle against Palworld.

  In a recent development regarding the ongoing legal tussle between Nintendo and the creators of Palworld, a creature-collecting, crafting, and survival game often likened to Pokémon with darker themes, Nintendo has secured yet another patent from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). This newly acquired patent pertains to specific game mechanics and features, further bolstering Nintendo's intellectual property portfolio and strengthening its position in the lawsuit against Palworld's developers. The article from GameRant elaborates on the implications of this new patent, suggesting it could be a strategic move by Nintendo to solidify its case and potentially broaden the scope of its infringement claims.

  While the exact details of the patent remain somewhat opaque, the GameRant report highlights the significance of this acquisition in the context of the ongoing legal battle. It underscores Nintendo's proactive approach to protecting its intellectual property, particularly concerning elements that bear resemblance to its highly successful Pokémon franchise. The article speculates that this newly granted patent could be utilized by Nintendo to argue for a wider range of infringements within Palworld, potentially encompassing not just superficial similarities but also underlying game mechanics and systems. This development adds another layer of complexity to the already intricate legal proceedings, potentially influencing the final outcome and setting a precedent for future cases involving intellectual property rights in the gaming industry. The acquisition of this patent demonstrates Nintendo's commitment to vigorously defending its intellectual property, indicating that the company is prepared to pursue legal avenues to protect its flagship franchises from perceived imitations. The article refrains from speculating on the specific content of the patent, but emphasizes its potential to significantly impact the trajectory of the ongoing legal dispute. It remains to be seen how this newly obtained patent will be wielded by Nintendo in its legal pursuit and what repercussions it will have for the future of Palworld. The situation warrants continued observation as the legal proceedings unfold and the impact of this new patent becomes clearer.

  • Nintendo
  • Palworld
  • Patent
  • Intellectual Property
  • Copyright
  • Lawsuit
  • Gaming
  • Video Games
  • Game Development
  • legal
  • USPTO
  • Infringement
  • Clone
  • Pocketpair

  Summary of Comments ( 3 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43059215

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discuss Nintendo's aggressive patenting strategy regarding features seemingly inspired by Pokémon in the upcoming game Palworld. Several commenters express skepticism about the validity and enforceability of these patents, particularly regarding "catching creatures" and "creature following," which are considered common game mechanics. Some argue that these broad patents stifle creativity and innovation within the gaming industry. Others point out the irony of Nintendo patenting mechanics they themselves may have borrowed or adapted from earlier games. The discussion also touches upon the potential legal challenges and costs involved for an indie studio like Pocketpair, the developers of Palworld, to fight these patents. Some predict that Palworld will likely have to alter its gameplay significantly to avoid infringement. A few users speculate about the motivation behind Nintendo's actions, questioning whether it's genuine concern for intellectual property protection or a strategic move to suppress a potential competitor.

  The Hacker News post discussing Nintendo obtaining a new anti-Palworld patent and seeking more has generated several comments. Many commenters express skepticism and criticism of Nintendo's legal strategy.

  One highly upvoted comment points out the seemingly broad and potentially problematic nature of the patent, which covers ordering a creature to pick up an object and then throw it at another creature to deal damage. The commenter argues this is a fundamental game mechanic present in numerous games, suggesting the patent's scope is overly broad. They question the validity of patenting such a common concept and express concern about its potential chilling effect on game development.

  Another prominent comment thread discusses the legal implications and the likelihood of Nintendo's success in court. Some commenters suggest that prior art likely exists, potentially invalidating the patent. Others speculate that even if the patent is upheld, proving infringement by Palworld could be challenging. They argue that demonstrating substantial similarity in gameplay mechanics, beyond the basic concept covered by the patent, would be necessary.

  Some users express frustration with Nintendo's perceived aggressive legal tactics and their impact on smaller developers. They view this patent as another example of Nintendo attempting to stifle competition and innovation.

  Several commenters also discuss the specific game, Palworld, and its potential vulnerability to these legal challenges. Some believe that Palworld's similarity to Pokemon makes it a more likely target for Nintendo.

  Finally, a few comments express a more neutral stance, suggesting a wait-and-see approach until the legal proceedings unfold. They acknowledge the complexity of patent law and the difficulty of predicting the outcome of such disputes.

  Overall, the comments reflect a predominantly negative sentiment towards Nintendo's patent and legal strategy. The commenters raise concerns about the patent's breadth, its potential impact on game development, and the fairness of Nintendo's actions towards smaller competitors.

• The Iconic 3DBenchy Enters the Public Domain

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-14 21:39:29

  Verbose tl;dr

  The popular 3D printer benchmark and test model, #3DBenchy, designed by Creative Tools, is now in the public domain. After ten years of copyright protection, anyone can freely use, modify, and distribute the Benchy model without restriction. This change opens up new possibilities for its use in education, research, and commercial projects. Creative Tools encourages continued community involvement and development around the Benchy model.

  The renowned and ubiquitously recognized 3D printing benchmark model, affectionately known as #3DBenchy, has transitioned into the public domain, signifying a momentous occasion for the additive manufacturing community. Originally conceived in 2015 by Creative Tools, a subsidiary of the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), 3DBenchy has served as an invaluable tool for evaluating and calibrating 3D printers worldwide. Its intricate design, incorporating a multitude of challenging geometric features such as overhangs, curved surfaces, and fine details, provides a comprehensive assessment of a printer's capabilities across various parameters.

  This shift to the public domain, after a period of being freely available under a Creative Commons license, effectively eliminates all previous licensing restrictions, granting unrestricted freedom to users for modification, distribution, and commercial exploitation of the 3DBenchy design. This newfound liberation empowers users to not only utilize the model for its original purpose of printer calibration but also to adapt and incorporate it into derivative works without any legal encumbrances or attribution requirements. The transition underscores Creative Tools' commitment to fostering open innovation and promoting the widespread adoption of 3D printing technology. The company views the move as a catalyst for further development within the 3D printing ecosystem, envisioning a future where the iconic little tugboat continues to play a pivotal role in advancing the state-of-the-art. Essentially, 3DBenchy, once a proprietary design, now belongs to the community as a whole, free for all to utilize and build upon. This act of releasing the design underscores the maturation of the 3D printing industry and solidifies 3DBenchy's legacy as a cornerstone of the technology's advancement.

  • 3D printing
  • 3DBenchy
  • Benchmark
  • calibration
  • public domain
  • Copyright
  • Creative Commons
  • Open Source
  • 3D Model
  • Digital Design
  • Additive Manufacturing

  Summary of Comments ( 15 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43053350

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discussed the implications of 3DBenchy entering the public domain, mostly focusing on its continued relevance. Some questioned its usefulness as a benchmark given advancements in 3D printing technology, suggesting it's more of a nostalgic icon than a practical tool. Others argued it remains a valuable quick print for testing new filaments or printer tweaks due to its familiarity and readily available troubleshooting information. A few comments highlighted the smart move by the original creators to release it publicly, ensuring its longevity and preventing others from profiting off of slightly modified versions. Several users expressed their appreciation for its simple yet effective design and its contribution to the 3D printing community.

  The Hacker News post "The Iconic 3DBenchy Enters the Public Domain" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43053350) has generated several comments discussing the implications of 3DBenchy's move to the public domain and its significance within the 3D printing community.

  Several commenters express positive sentiment about Creative Tools' decision. One user describes it as "a class act" and highlights the benefit to the community now that anyone can freely modify and distribute derivatives of the Benchy. This sentiment is echoed by another who emphasizes the freedom it grants for creating and selling modified Benchys without legal concerns.

  The discussion also touches upon the practical aspects of the public domain dedication. One commenter asks about the specific license used to ensure clarity and avoid potential misunderstandings regarding permitted usage. Another user responds, explaining that Creative Tools used CC0, which effectively relinquishes all copyright and related rights, placing the work firmly in the public domain. This exchange clarifies the legal ramifications of the decision.

  Furthermore, the conversation delves into the history and cultural impact of 3DBenchy. A commenter recalls its ubiquitous presence in the 3D printing world, highlighting its utility as a benchmarking and calibration tool. They also mention seeing various iterations and modifications, demonstrating its influence on the community's creativity. Another user recounts its role as a "torture test" for new printers and filaments, illustrating its practical value beyond just calibration.

  Some comments explore potential future uses of 3DBenchy now that it's in the public domain. One commenter suggests it could be incorporated into 3D modeling software as a standard test object. Another envisions its use in educational settings to teach 3D modeling principles. These comments highlight the potential for wider adoption and integration of Benchy across different applications.

  Finally, there's a discussion regarding the enduring legacy of 3DBenchy. One commenter expresses the belief that it will continue to be widely used and recognized within the 3D printing community, solidifying its status as an iconic design. Another user remarks on the infrequent occurrence of objects achieving this level of recognition in the digital realm, underscoring the significance of Benchy's public domain status.

  In summary, the comments on Hacker News reflect a generally positive response to 3DBenchy entering the public domain. They discuss the legal aspects of the decision, the practical implications for users, the historical context of Benchy's development, and its potential future uses. Overall, the comments paint a picture of a community that appreciates Creative Tools' generosity and anticipates the continued impact of this iconic 3D model.

• Thomson Reuters wins first major AI copyright case in the US

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-11 20:56:21

  Verbose tl;dr

  A US judge ruled in favor of Thomson Reuters, establishing a significant precedent in AI copyright law. The ruling affirmed that Westlaw, Reuters' legal research platform, doesn't infringe copyright by using data from rival legal databases like Casetext to train its generative AI models. The judge found the copied material constituted fair use because the AI uses the data differently than the original databases, transforming the information into new formats and features. This decision indicates that using copyrighted data for AI training might be permissible if the resulting AI product offers a distinct and transformative function compared to the original source material.

  In a landmark legal victory that establishes a significant precedent for the burgeoning field of artificial intelligence and its interaction with copyright law, Thomson Reuters has prevailed in a lawsuit against an emergent competitor, Westlaw, concerning the unauthorized utilization of copyrighted legal data in the training of Westlaw's AI-powered legal research tools. This case, meticulously scrutinized by legal experts and technology observers alike, revolved around the core question of whether ingesting copyrighted material for the purpose of training an artificial intelligence constitutes fair use, a principle within copyright law that permits limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holder.

  The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, presiding over this pivotal case, unequivocally ruled in favor of Thomson Reuters, affirming that Westlaw's actions constituted copyright infringement. The court’s detailed analysis rejected Westlaw's argument that its use of Thomson Reuters’ copyrighted data fell under the protective umbrella of fair use. Specifically, the court found that Westlaw's utilization of the copyrighted material was not transformative, a key factor in determining fair use. The court elaborated that Westlaw's AI, trained on Thomson Reuters' data, essentially replicated the functionality and utility of the original copyrighted works, thereby directly competing with Thomson Reuters’ own products and services. This competitive impact significantly weighed against a finding of fair use.

  Furthermore, the court's decision underscored the substantial economic implications of Westlaw's actions. By leveraging Thomson Reuters’ copyrighted data, Westlaw was able to develop a competing product without incurring the considerable costs and effort associated with creating such a comprehensive legal database independently. The court deemed this unauthorized exploitation of Thomson Reuters’ investment to be a detrimental factor in the fair use analysis.

  This legal triumph for Thomson Reuters represents a crucial development in the evolving intersection of artificial intelligence and intellectual property law. It sets a potentially impactful precedent for future cases involving the use of copyrighted material in the training of AI models, signaling that courts are willing to protect copyright holders' rights even in the face of rapidly advancing technological landscapes. The ruling emphasizes the importance of obtaining proper licenses and authorizations when utilizing copyrighted material for AI training, and it serves as a stark reminder that the principles of copyright law extend to the digital realm and encompass the innovative applications of artificial intelligence. The long-term implications of this decision are likely to be far-reaching, influencing the strategies and practices of companies developing AI technologies and shaping the legal framework within which this transformative technology operates.

  • artificial intelligence
  • AI
  • Copyright
  • Lawsuit
  • Thomson Reuters
  • legal
  • Technology
  • US Law
  • Intellectual Property
  • data mining
  • AI Training Data
  • Copyright Infringement
  • Generative AI
  • Large Language Models
  • LLMs
  • news
  • Current Events

  Summary of Comments ( 73 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43018251

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters generally agree that Westlaw's terms of service likely prohibit scraping, regardless of copyright implications. Several point out that training data is generally considered fair use, and question whether the judge's decision will hold up on appeal. Some suggest the ruling might create a chilling effect on open-source LLMs, while others argue that large companies will simply absorb the licensing costs. A few commenters see this as a positive outcome, forcing AI companies to pay for the data they use. The discussion also touches upon the potential for increased competition and innovation if smaller players can access data more affordably than licensing Westlaw's content.

  The Hacker News post "Thomson Reuters wins first major AI copyright lawsuit in the US" generated a moderate number of comments discussing the implications of the lawsuit and its potential impact on the future of AI training.

  Several commenters focused on the specifics of the case, highlighting the judge's decision to grant a preliminary injunction based on Westlaw's terms of service, which explicitly prohibit using the data for AI training. They pointed out that this differs from asserting copyright infringement on the underlying legal data itself, and makes the case somewhat unique. This means the ruling isn't a blanket statement on the legality of AI training using copyrighted data, but rather a more narrow decision based on contractual obligations. Some suggested that this highlights the importance of clear terms of service and how they can be a powerful tool in protecting data.

  A related discussion thread explored the idea of "fair use" and how it might apply to AI training. Commenters debated whether training an AI model could be considered transformative use, which is a key factor in fair use determinations. Some argued that the current legal framework is ill-equipped to handle the nuances of AI and that new legislation might be necessary. Others countered that existing copyright law is sufficient, and it's simply a matter of applying it correctly to these new technologies.

  Another point raised by several commenters was the potential chilling effect this ruling could have on AI research and development. They expressed concern that companies might be hesitant to invest in AI if there is significant legal uncertainty surrounding data usage. This, they argued, could stifle innovation and slow down the progress of the field.

  Some commenters also discussed the business implications of the ruling, particularly for Thomson Reuters. They speculated about whether the company would ultimately pursue a licensing model for their data, allowing AI companies to access it for training purposes under certain conditions. This, they suggested, could be a mutually beneficial arrangement, allowing Thomson Reuters to monetize their data while enabling AI development.

  Finally, there was some discussion of the technical aspects of AI training and how data is used. Commenters explained how large language models learn from massive datasets and debated the extent to which the training data is "copied" or merely influences the model's output. This technical understanding was crucial to some of the legal arguments being made in the comments section.

  Overall, the comments on Hacker News provided a range of perspectives on the legal, business, and technical implications of the Thomson Reuters lawsuit, reflecting a complex and evolving understanding of AI and copyright.

• Why is Warner Bros. Discovery putting old movies on YouTube?

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-05 14:47:32

  Verbose tl;dr

  Warner Bros. Discovery is releasing full-length, classic movies on their free, ad-supported YouTube channels like "WB Movies" and genre-specific hubs. This strategy aims to monetize their vast film library content that isn't performing well on streaming services. By utilizing YouTube's existing audience and ad infrastructure, they can generate revenue from these older films without the costs associated with maintaining their own streaming platform or licensing deals. This also allows them to experiment with different ad formats and potentially drive traffic to their Max streaming service by showcasing their library's depth.

  In an elaborate and multifaceted strategic maneuver, Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD) has embarked on the seemingly paradoxical practice of releasing complete, feature-length films from its extensive cinematic library onto the freely accessible platform of YouTube. This counterintuitive approach, as elucidated by Tedium, is driven by a confluence of factors, none of which individually fully explain the phenomenon, but when considered in totality, paint a comprehensive picture of WBD's overarching objectives.

  Firstly, the company is leveraging the vast reach of YouTube to monetize older content that may not be generating substantial revenue through traditional distribution channels. By placing these films, which include a mix of recognizable titles and more obscure offerings, on YouTube, WBD can capitalize on advertising revenue generated through pre-roll, mid-roll, and other forms of embedded advertising. This allows them to extract value from a catalog that might otherwise remain dormant and unproductive. This strategy is particularly relevant for films that have passed their prime in terms of theatrical releases, home video sales, and streaming platform licensing.

  Secondly, this digital distribution strategy on YouTube allows WBD to engage with a younger demographic, accustomed to consuming entertainment through free, ad-supported online platforms. This exposure introduces classic films to a new generation and potentially cultivates future paying customers for WBD's subscription-based streaming services like Max. It serves as a form of brand building and content discovery, fostering familiarity and appreciation for the studio's vast cinematic heritage.

  Thirdly, WBD is navigating the complex landscape of streaming rights and licensing agreements. Certain films within their catalog may be entangled in pre-existing contracts that restrict their availability on WBD's own streaming platforms. By placing these films on YouTube, WBD circumvents these contractual limitations and still manages to generate revenue from these assets, maximizing their utilization within the bounds of legal agreements.

  Finally, this approach can be viewed as an experimental foray into alternative distribution models. The entertainment industry is in constant flux, and WBD's YouTube initiative can be interpreted as a test case for exploring the viability and profitability of ad-supported streaming for older content. This experimentation provides valuable data and insights into audience behavior and revenue potential, informing future strategic decisions regarding content distribution and monetization. It's a calculated risk with the potential for significant returns in a rapidly evolving media landscape.

  • Warner Bros. Discovery
  • YouTube
  • Movies
  • streaming
  • Film
  • Free Streaming
  • Classic Films
  • Copyright
  • media
  • Entertainment
  • distribution
  • Digital Distribution
  • Monetization
  • Advertising
  • Content Strategy
  • Old Movies
  • Film Preservation

  Summary of Comments ( 417 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42949181

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News commenters discuss several potential reasons for Warner Bros. Discovery's strategy of releasing free, ad-supported movies on YouTube. Some suggest it's a way to monetize their back catalog of less popular films that aren't performing well on streaming services. Others posit it's an experiment in alternative distribution models, given the ongoing challenges and costs associated with maintaining their own streaming platform. The possibility of YouTube offering better revenue sharing than other platforms is also raised. Several commenters express skepticism about the long-term viability of this strategy, questioning whether ad revenue alone can be substantial enough. Finally, some speculate that this move might be a precursor to shutting down their existing streaming services altogether.

  The Hacker News post discussing Warner Bros. Discovery's strategy of releasing older movies on YouTube generated a moderate number of comments, primarily exploring the potential motivations and implications of this move.

  Several commenters focused on the financial aspect. Some suggested that Warner Bros. Discovery might be prioritizing short-term revenue generation from YouTube ads over potential long-term gains from licensing or other distribution methods. They speculated that the company might be facing financial difficulties and is looking for quick cash flow. Others pointed to the declining value of older movie catalogs and the potential for YouTube to provide a wider audience reach than smaller streaming services or other licensing agreements. The idea of exploiting existing resources to generate revenue with minimal effort was also raised.

  A few comments touched on the legal and copyright implications. One user questioned the implications of Warner Bros. Discovery seemingly owning both the movies and the platform (via their ownership stake in Roku, which offers the YouTube app) and how that relates to antitrust considerations, although this wasn't discussed in depth.

  Some commenters saw this move as a positive for consumers, providing free and easily accessible entertainment. Others were more skeptical, raising concerns about potential impact on other distribution channels and the long-term implications for the film industry.

  A couple of commenters brought a more technical perspective, discussing the quality of the uploads and whether this move suggests a shift in Warner Bros. Discovery's digital strategy. One comment mentioned the contrast between the relative low quality of the YouTube uploads compared to better quality copies potentially available elsewhere.

  The most compelling comments revolved around the financial motivations behind this move. The discussions about short-term vs. long-term revenue strategies and the decreasing value of older movie catalogs were particularly insightful, offering different perspectives on the potential calculations Warner Bros. Discovery might be making. The discussion, while not extensive, provided a good overview of various possible reasons for the shift to YouTube distribution.

• Live London Underground / bus maps taken down by TfL trademark complaint

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-01-13 12:51:37

  Verbose tl;dr

  Transport for London (TfL) issued a trademark complaint, forcing the removal of live London Underground and bus maps hosted on traintimes.org.uk. The site owner, frustrated by TfL's own subpar map offerings, had created these real-time maps as a personal project, intending them for personal use and a small group of friends. While acknowledging TfL's right to protect its trademark, the author expressed disappointment, especially given the lack of comparable functionality in TfL's official maps and their stated intention to avoid competing with the official offerings.

  A meticulously crafted, real-time map of the London Underground and bus network, hosted on the domain traintimes.org.uk, has been regrettably deactivated following a trademark infringement complaint lodged by Transport for London (TfL). The map, a significant undertaking by the developer, distinguished itself by dynamically displaying the current locations of London Underground trains and buses, offering users an immediate and comprehensive visualization of the city's bustling transit system. This dynamic functionality was achieved by meticulously processing and visually representing publicly available data feeds provided by TfL.

  The developer, who invested substantial effort into this project, expressed disappointment with TfL's decision, particularly highlighting the irony of the complaint arising from the use of data freely disseminated by TfL itself. The now-defunct map was highly regarded for its user-friendly interface and the clarity with which it presented complex real-time information. Its removal represents a loss for London commuters and anyone interested in observing the dynamic flow of the city’s public transportation network. While static maps of the London Underground are readily available, the distinctive real-time element of this particular map is now unavailable due to the enforced trademark restrictions. The developer's efforts to provide a valuable public service have, unfortunately, been curtailed by this legal intervention, leaving a void in the landscape of readily accessible, real-time London transit visualizations. The developer has indicated an intention to explore alternative avenues for presenting this type of information, but for the time being, the dynamic map remains inaccessible.

  • London Underground
  • TfL
  • Transport for London
  • Live Map
  • Bus Map
  • Trademark
  • Copyright
  • Intellectual Property
  • Traintimes.org.uk
  • Public Transport
  • London Buses
  • Tube Map
  • Data Rights
  • Transit Data
  • Open Data
  • Legal Dispute
  • Cease and Desist
  • UK
  • London

  Summary of Comments ( 37 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42682876

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discussed TfL's trademark complaint leading to the takedown of the independent live tube map. Several commenters expressed frustration with TfL's perceived heavy-handedness and lack of an official, equally good alternative. Some suggested the creator could have avoided the takedown by simply rebranding or subtly altering the design. Others debated the merits of trademark law and the fairness of TfL's actions, considering whether the map constituted fair use. A few users questioned the project's long-term viability due to the reliance on scraping potentially unstable data sources. The prevalent sentiment was disappointment at the loss of a useful tool due to what many considered an overzealous application of trademark law.

  The Hacker News post "Live London Underground / bus maps taken down by TfL trademark complaint" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42682876) sparked a discussion with several compelling comments. Many commenters expressed frustration and disappointment with Transport for London (TfL)'s actions, viewing it as heavy-handed and detrimental to the public good.

  A recurring sentiment was that TfL should embrace and collaborate with independent developers who create tools that enhance the public's experience with London's transit system. Some suggested that TfL's own digital offerings are often subpar, making independently developed alternatives even more valuable. The takedown of the live tube map was seen as a missed opportunity for TfL to partner with the developer and potentially integrate the useful features into their official platform.

  Several comments focused on the trademark issue. Some questioned the validity of TfL's claim, arguing that using the roundel and station names might not constitute trademark infringement, especially when used for a non-commercial, public service. Others pointed out the potential chilling effect of such takedowns, discouraging other developers from creating similar tools.

  The discussion also touched on the broader implications for open data and public transit information. Commenters argued that such data should be freely available to encourage innovation and the development of beneficial public services. The restrictive approach taken by TfL was contrasted with other transit systems that actively encourage the use of their data by third-party developers.

  Some commenters offered practical suggestions, such as using a different style for the map to avoid trademark issues, or exploring legal options to challenge the takedown. There was also speculation about the specific reasons behind TfL's decision, with some suggesting that it might be related to revenue generation from their own official app or concerns about liability in case of inaccuracies in the independently developed map.

  Overall, the comments reflect a strong sentiment against TfL's decision. The takedown was widely perceived as an overreach of trademark enforcement, hindering innovation and limiting the public's access to useful tools. The discussion highlighted the tension between protecting intellectual property and fostering a vibrant ecosystem of public transit applications.