> If I'm happy with the weights you've given me, and I'm not using your compute for inference and not wanting or needing any updates off you, why should you continue getting money off me and my customers?

Because they own the IP and they get to decide the terms of how it’s licensed.

This is like a company taking open source software, saying they like the code the community has given them, and asking why they should continue having to respect the terms of the license after downloading the code. The availability of the software (or models) does not equal a free license to use as you please.

A license allowing 100K devices for free is very generous. The businesses selling more than 100K units of anything will be significant operations. It’s fair that they’re asked to contribute financially.

▲

serf 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>Because they own the IP and they get to decide the terms of how it’s licensed.

how'd that work out for the rest of IP owners that had their stuff used as training data for use in model creation?

was the material they trained on produced in-house?

▲

Aurornis 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Use as training data has been tested in court multiple times and cleared.

I know some people want it to be a legal violation, but it’s not.

Also these are audio models, if you hadn’t noticed. The training sets for this type of work is very different than the corpus of scraped GitHub repos.

	▲	HeatrayEnjoyer an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		This is not even remotely settled law yet, what an absolute falsehood! It will take years for the hundreds of jurisdictions in the world to write new laws and (in common law countries) establish new precedent.
	▲	Chris2048 an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Presumably it's fine to train a model on their model then?

▲

Dlemlo 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Was the material, I was trained, produced in-house?

Philosophical questions don't make sense if you use them to counter argue about something which is a legal issue.

▲

avazhi an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> how'd that work out for the rest of IP owners that had their stuff used as training data for use in model creation? was the material they trained on produced in-house?

Not only did you pull a whataboutism but the whataboutism isn't even relevant to the topic of conversation lol.

▲

sejje 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

He's not arguing about their right to license it how they please. He's arguing that someone ought to choose to do it another way.

You made up a position to argue against.

	▲	Aurornis 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No, you’re arguing against the first part of my comment without reading the whole thing where I addressed the value proposition. A 100K free device license is a generous gift to small companies. Past 100K, it’s more than fair to ask that companies contribute. That’s a significant operation at that point and the model has obviously provided value. If the model doesn’t provide any value to a >100K device company then they should train their own or not use it. I could see how people unfamiliar with per-device or per-unit licensing fees would be confused, but this is a common business model. Scaling payments with the customer’s business success is one of the more fair ways to align vendor and customer while also providing a nice way to give freely to smaller businesses like this. It’s a good thing. It’s silly that a company giving away a license for 100K devices, which covers small and medium hardware operations, is being criticized for this of all things.