3 ms·

Where is The Conversation complaining about not getting paid to link to them?

gjsman-1000 4y ago
I was referring to the following: > Finally, OpenAI did not pay for the data it scraped from the internet. The individuals, website owners and companies that produced it were not compensated. This is an argument that "proves too much." See if I switch terms with something more familiar: > Finally, Google did not pay for the data it scraped from the internet. The individuals, website owners and companies that produced it were not compensated. This is a classic "link tax" argument. The Conversation may also not have noticed that the US has repeatedly declared web scraping legal, as lately as last year. https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/18/web-scraping-legal-court/ https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/18/web-scraping-legal-court/
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  Okay but that’s not the argument they’re making? OpenAI does something very different with the data than Google does. Hell, Google does something different with the data than Google does — that argument reads very differently if you’re talking about links vs. the summary boxes at the top of some searches. I’ve talked about the HiQ case on here before. I wish we were able to come up with something more nuanced (probably not in the courts, though). Scraping people’s LinkedIns to snitch to their employers when they’re job hunting is obviously a thing we should limit as much as possible.
  - gjsman-1000 4y ago
    Well, what happens when Google releases Bard, their own ChatGPT for Search? Then we've got Google playing both sides of web scraping - both for link aggregation and AI research (as though they weren't doing it for AI research anyway). How do we legally differentiate that? Right now there is no legal differentiation as far as I can find. And an occasional verbatim paragraph or copied image does not overcome the "fair use" firewall in which intent (did ChatGPT intend to allow copyright infringement? Or is that just an occasional accident?) plays a huge factor. It almost brings back memories of Sony vs. Universal over whether VHS time-shifting was legal. The finding was that the device was legal, even though copyright-infringing use cases were possible and even likely. You could argue that the internet, itself, would be a violation of similar standards. Tons of artists had their artwork posted online for profit without their permission in the early days. We worked through it and the internet wasn't declared illegal despite the abundance (and continued abundance) of copyright infringement. Even during the days of wild MP3 downloading, ISPs weren't legally considered enablers. Yet another example I can think of - Photoshop. People who used Photoshop were culpable - but Adobe was never sued for making software that allowed celebrities to be digitally edited in horrific ways, or for copyrighted images to be remixed and edited en-masse. Intent matters - Photoshop clearly wasn't made with that intent, even though it is a possible outcome.

I was referring to the following: > Finally, OpenAI did not pay for the data it scraped from the internet. The individuals, website owners and companies that produced it were not compensated. This is an argument that "proves too much." See if I switch terms with something more familiar: > Finally, Google did not pay for the data it scraped from the internet. The individuals, website owners and companies that produced it were not compensated. This is a classic "link tax" argument. The Conversation may also not have noticed that the US has repeatedly declared web scraping legal, as lately as last year. https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/18/web-scraping-legal-court/ https://techcrunch.com/2022/04/18/web-scraping-legal-court/

jakelazaroff 4y ago
Okay but that’s not the argument they’re making? OpenAI does something very different with the data than Google does. Hell, Google does something different with the data than Google does — that argument reads very differently if you’re talking about links vs. the summary boxes at the top of some searches. I’ve talked about the HiQ case on here before. I wish we were able to come up with something more nuanced (probably not in the courts, though). Scraping people’s LinkedIns to snitch to their employers when they’re job hunting is obviously a thing we should limit as much as possible.
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  Well, what happens when Google releases Bard, their own ChatGPT for Search? Then we've got Google playing both sides of web scraping - both for link aggregation and AI research (as though they weren't doing it for AI research anyway). How do we legally differentiate that? Right now there is no legal differentiation as far as I can find. And an occasional verbatim paragraph or copied image does not overcome the "fair use" firewall in which intent (did ChatGPT intend to allow copyright infringement? Or is that just an occasional accident?) plays a huge factor. It almost brings back memories of Sony vs. Universal over whether VHS time-shifting was legal. The finding was that the device was legal, even though copyright-infringing use cases were possible and even likely. You could argue that the internet, itself, would be a violation of similar standards. Tons of artists had their artwork posted online for profit without their permission in the early days. We worked through it and the internet wasn't declared illegal despite the abundance (and continued abundance) of copyright infringement. Even during the days of wild MP3 downloading, ISPs weren't legally considered enablers. Yet another example I can think of - Photoshop. People who used Photoshop were culpable - but Adobe was never sued for making software that allowed celebrities to be digitally edited in horrific ways, or for copyrighted images to be remixed and edited en-masse. Intent matters - Photoshop clearly wasn't made with that intent, even though it is a possible outcome.