Comment on The Irony of 'You Wouldn't Download a Car' Making a Comeback in AI Debates

• sorghum@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Also, ingredients to a recipe aren’t covered under copyright law.

  source

  • ProstheticBrain@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    To take a poke at your lovely strawman - ingredients to a recipe may well be subject to copyright, which is why food writers make sure their recipes are “unique” in some small way. Enough to make them different enough to avoid accusations of direct plagiarism.

    source

    • General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      In what country is that?

      Under US law, you cannot copyright recipes. You can own a specific text in which you explain the recipe. But anyone can write down the same ingredients and instructions in a different way and own that text.

      source

      • micka190@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        Keep in my that “ingredients to a recipe” here refers to the literal physical ingredients, based on the context of the OP (where a sandwich shop owner can’t afford to pay for their cheese).

        While you can’t copyright a recipe, you can patent the ingredients themselves, especially if you had a hand in doing R&D to create it. See PepsiCo sues four Indian farmers for using its patented Lay’s potatoes.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • oxomoxo@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      I think there is some confusion here between copyright and patent, similar in concept but legally exclusive. A person can copyright the order and selection of words used to express a recipe, but the recipe itself is not copy, it can however fall under patent law if proven to be unique enough, which is difficult to prove.

      So you can technically own the patent to a recipe keeping other companies from selling the product of a recipe, however anyone can make the recipe themselves, if you can acquire it and not resell it. However that recipe can be expressed in many different ways, each having their own copyright.

      source
• General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Yes, that’s exactly the point. It should belong to humanity, which means that anyone can use it to improve themselves. Or to create something nice for themselves or others. That’s exactly what AI companies are doing. And because it is not stealing, it is all still there for anyone else. Unless, of course, the copyrightists get there way.

  source
• WaxedWookie@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Unlike regular piracy, accessing “their” product hosted on their servers using their power and compute is pretty clearly theft. Morally correct theft that I wholeheartedly support, but theft nonetheless.

  source

  • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Is that how this technology works? I’m not the most knowledgeable about tech stuff honestly (at least by Lemmy standards).

    source

    • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      There’s self-hosted LLMs, (e.g. Ollama), but for the purposes of this conversation, yeah - they’re centrally hosted, compute intensive software services.

      source