Of course, maybe OpenAI et al should have get a license before training on the lyrics or to avoid training on copyrighted content. But the first would be expensive and the latter would require them to develop actual intelligence.
At the very least, the users being liable instead of OpenAI makes no sense. Like arresting only drug users and not dealers.
I'm just asking where are we going to put the line and why.
> However, the lyrics are shown because the user requested them, shouldn't be the user be liable instead?
I would imagine the sociological rationale for allowing sex work would not map to a multi-billion-dollar company.
And to add, the social network example doesn't map because the user is producing the content and sharing it with the network. In OpenAI's case, they are creating and distributing copyrighted works.
The social networks are distributing such content AND benefiting from selling ads on them. Adding ads on top is a derivative work.
Personally I'm on the side of penalizing the side that provides the input, not the output:
- OpenAI training on copyrighted works. - Users requesting custom works based on copyrighted IP
That is my opinion on how it should be layered, that's it. I'm happy to discuss why it should be that way or why not. As I put in other comment, my concern is that mandating copyright filtering o each generative tool would end up propagating to every single digital tool, which as society we don't really want.
Same goes for websites where you can watch piracy streams. "The action is the user pressing play" sounds like it might win you an internet argument, but I'm 99% sure none of the courts will play those games, you as the operator who enabled whatever the user could do ends up liable.
My concern is that where are we going to put the line: If I type a copyrighted song in Word is Microsoft liable? If I upload a lyric to ChatGPT and ask it to analyze or translate it, is it a copyright violation?
I totally understand your line of thinking. However, the one I'm suggesting could be applied as well and it has precedents in law (intellectual authors of crimes are punishable, not only the perpetrators).
Well...YouTube is liable for any copyrighted material on their site, and do 'more than one thing'
The problem is if OpenAI is liable for reproducing copyrighted content, so will be other products such as word processors, video editors and so on. So, as society where we will put the line?
Are we going to tolerate some copyright infringement in these tools or are we going to pursue copyright infringements even in other tools as we already got the tools to detect it?
We cannot have double standards, law should be applied equally to everyone.
I do think that overall making OpenAI liable for output is a bad precedent, because of repercusions beyond AI tools. I'm all fine with making them liable for having trained on copyrighted content and so on...
> Not really. Youtube is not liable as long as they remove the content after a copyright complain and other mechanisms.
They have to take action precisely because they're liable for the material on their platform.
If that was case then Google wouldn't receive DMCA takedown of piracy links, instead offer up users searching for piracy content. Former is more prevalent than latter because one, it requires invasion of privacy - you have to serve up everyone's search results
two, it requires understanding of intent.
Same is the issue here. OpenAI then needs to share all chats for courts to shift through and second, how to judge intent. If someone asks for a German pop song and OpenAI decides to output Bochum - whose fault is that?