logoalt Hacker News

CamperBob2yesterday at 12:28 AM4 repliesview on HN

I have a Xerox machine that can reliably reproduce copyrighted works. Is that a problem, too?

Blaming tools for the actions of their users is stupid.


Replies

threetonesunyesterday at 12:31 AM

If the Xerox machine had all of the copyrighted works in it and you just had to ask it nicely to print them I think you'd say the tool is in the wrong there, not the user.

show 5 replies
zeta0134yesterday at 12:48 AM

Helpfully the law already disagrees. That Xerox machine tampers with the printed result, leaving a faint signature that is meant to help detect forgeries. You know, for when users copy things that are actually illegal to copy. Xerox machine (and every other printer sold today) literally leaves a paper trail to trace it back to them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_tracking_dots

show 1 reply
saghmyesterday at 10:39 AM

If I've copied someone else's copyrighted work on my Xerox machine, then give it to you, you can't reproduce the work I copied. If I leave a copy of it in the scanner when I give it to you, that's another story. The issue here isn't the ability of an LLM to produce it when I provide it with the copyrighted work as an input, it's whether or not there's an input baked-in at the time of distribution that gives it the ability to continue producing it even if the person who receives it doesn't have access to the work to provide it in the first place.

To be clear, I don't have any particular insight on whether this is possible right now with LLMs, and I'm not taking a stance on copyright law in general with this comment. I don't think your argument makes sense though because there's a clear technical difference that seems like it would be pretty significant as a matter of law. There are plenty of reasonable arguments against things like the agreement mentioned in the article, but in my opinion, your objection isn't one of the.

show 1 reply
fodkodraszyesterday at 3:45 AM

According to the law in some jurisdictions it is. (notably most EU Member States, and several others worldwide).

In those places actually fees are included ("reprographic levy") in the appliance, and the needed supply prices, or public operators may need to pay additionally based on usage. That money goes towards funds created to compensate copyright holders for loss of profit due to copyright infringement carries out through the use of photocopiers.

Xerox is in no way singled out and discriminated against. (Yes, I know this is an Americanism)

show 1 reply