NYT sues OpenAI, Microsoft over 'millions of articles' used to train ChatGPT
theregister.com
theregister.com
Despite how many negatives the current copyright regime has, having to wait 70 years after the death of the author is far too long of a timeframe for that strategy to play out.
In that case, by definition, the artist was paid.
Being paid for a spec or a per diem while making the movie can be peanuts. Big name actors and writers make percentages on the backend.
Artists would still make art but would have to either have patronage or find an alternative income source to make a living.
This seems utterly arbitrary. I fail to understand your logic here.
There. Fix't.
If you want to make money, open-sourcing your work seems to be a very hard way of doing so.
The artist has no sort of guarantee of income from any particular piece of work or really even subsistence from their entire life's output of work.
I think most people would agree that the physical trades and the arts are not well-suited for comparisons. They are just fundamentally too different.
How is the writing of a book, the production of a movie or the recording of a song any different from the building of a bridge, the drafting of a contract, or the provision of management consultancy? How are they "fundamentally too different" if it's not the way we pay for them?
But more importantly, how is is that we see this difference as so fundamental that we afford protection to an artist (or more accurately, their publishers and the industry that surrounds them) via copyright for so long?
You do not get to clone the shovel by magic for about .1 cent and sell 50M copies of it for $20 each for the next forever.
Again - the copyright system as it currently exists needs to die. 7 years protection is enuogh.
The point was not to defend the current copyright system and certainly not some of the more notable abusers. You asked a question, and that that is one part of the answer. Writing a book or doing any form of creative information-product work is different from doing physical-product or service work.
Then it isn't the copyright at fault here but the agreement between the artist/author and publisher. Artists are famously forced to make bad deals when they don't have any leverage.
No more software licenses?
Which is just another way of saying "Music Companies would stop technological progress itself if it affects their bottom line (and they can figure out a way to do it)."
My guess is there’s going to be an exception given, but that’s not yet decided.
Changing the words spoken to sound sophisticated does not change anything.
Obligatory IANAL.
https://mashable.com/article/chatgpt-revealed-personal-data-...
It may not be conclusive, but it's highly suggestive:
> Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: Under this factor, courts look at both the quantity and quality of the copyrighted material that was used. If the use includes a large portion of the copyrighted work, fair use is less likely to be found; if the use employs only a small amount of copyrighted material, fair use is more likely.
Copyright is insidious because people tried all sorts of ways to get around it in the past. You can’t for example replace all the words in an article with synonyms and get a completely new work. Thus, asking ChatGPT to summarize an article is problematic because the output is based on the original work irrespective of what’s happening internally.
Summaries are explicitly permitted, which is why CliffNotes, Wikipedia, etc can publish synopses of copyrighted works.
Note how much of the ‘summery’ section isn’t just a listing of what happens but an interpretation of what happens: https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/f/fahrenheit-451/summ...
“At the same time, she also gives the reader the opportunity to see that the government has dramatically changed what its citizens perceive as their history. For example, Montag never knew that firemen used to fight actual fires...”
You are confusing training a model vs using it. This way a web browser can also be said to use NYT's content.
The point was people seem to assume only direct copies are problematic but that’s not the case. Training/feature extraction is just as mechanical as making an MP3.
Because you're trying build a silicon brain, and a carbon-based brain is allowed to learn from books and articles without permission (e.g. reading them at the library or online), so why shouldn't a silicon brain also be allowed to learn that way?
People should obtain their learning material legally. True statement (at least as "true" as any opinionated value judgement can be, I guess). The question is how, though, is that statement relevant here?
Even by the NYT's own telling (the way that OpenAI obtained their articles was from the NYT's website) what OpenAI did was not illegal copyright infringement. The problem is that NYT is under the impression that allowing search engines to access their paywalled stuff and hoping they don't do anything else with it besides putting up conventional, Google-style SERPs makes for copyright infringement if what one of them actually wants it for involves other reasons. It doesn't. There's an adequate legal instrument available for NYT to use if they want to enforce conditions on use: a contract. Do they have a contract that somebody violated? If not, they have no cause to go after anyone. And if they do have a contract that was violated, then that's still not copyright infringement—it's a breach of their contract.
If I open a store you have implied permission to enter the premises, but not stay inside for 16 hours. Further the second I ask you to leave you no longer have permission to be on the premises. The store doesn’t need to add a lock or put up signs, you’re aware you don’t have permission and that’s it.
(Your analogy is bad and doesn't hold up. Copyright doesn't grant rightsholders control of the sort required here. It grants them the right to make and distribute copies. It doesn't grant the right to undistribute copies when it turns out they don't like what someone is doing with them.)
A core argument OpenAI is making is transitory copying is allowed as long training is fair use. But a permanent copy stored in a training database isn’t transitory and would itself be copyright infringement, so they don’t do that.
Thus training each version requires permission to download a new copy, which they now lack.
> ChatGPT keeps redownloading works to avoid the issue of keeping permeant copy’s of the training material
I don't know enough about how ChatGPT works to know whether or not that's true, but from an engineering standpoint it certainly sounds wrong because of how insane it would be if true, and I'm not at all convinced that you're right about this given how poorly you understand the other stuff you're trying to argue that I happen to know you're wrong about, so it doesn't seem unwise to conclude that the same is probably true about your claims here. But it doesn't matter, anyway:
> which would be obvious copyright infringement
Wrong. OpenAI keeps asking for copies, NYT keeps giving them out (whether/despite OpenAI having/not having "permission" or not). Not copyright infringement, let alone "obvious copyright infringement".
This is going to be my last response that takes a substantial amount of effort to compose. Arguing with /r/confidentlyincorrect-tier zero-effort Gish gallops* is not a good use of my time.
* especially from someone shameless about editing their posts after the fact to make them diverge substantially from what was originally written
The computer said ok isn’t enough or hacking would be legal.
> from an engineering standpoint it certainly sounds wrong
An engineering standpoint is completely irrelevant, this is a pure legal matter. The law is a strange place with it’s own rules you need to actually look into it not just make assumptions.
(Why do I need to post not just one but two exhortations to follow the basic rules of conversation? If you're going to say something, then say something true, but make sure it's also relevant.)
If you don’t understand I can clarify, but being obtuse just makes you seem childish.
PS: If analogy is annoy you I could stop, but you don’t understand what’s involved so I am trying to help.
Thus I accept your defeat but find your continued commentary silly.
It's okay if you're still confused. The world is tricky. Not everyone is equipped to reason about everything they encounter, even they see other people are, and that's okay if you can't. But if you're going to offer your interpretation you need to actually look into what the other person is arguing—not just make assumptions.
In point of fact, one of what I consider the "shadow innovations" of the technical era is that we even accepted the idea of clickwrapped contracting as a valid legal construct; especially given the fact a canonical requirement of a contract "a meeting of the minds" never substantially happens. (No redline accommodation, no valid contract imo).
If that is the case, the time has come for novel law to address the issue. And that will be a hell of a political fight because it will basically boil down to who we feel should have more rights and resources in society.
Is it actually the public, or is it three dinosaurs wearing a PR campaign?
Does modern copyright have any purpose other than maintaining the existing class order?
- There's no such thing as New York Times.