4 ms·

If I'm a person and I limit the way you scrape my private blog, It's not clear how I'm entrenching anyone

by Angostura 4y ago

zdragnar 4y ago
If it's on the internet and not behind a paywall, it's not private.
- orev 4y ago
  In the US, anything you create is automatically copyrighted and you have full rights to decide who does what with it, unless you explicitly waive those rights, even if you post it publicly on the Internet. Too many people seem to think that just because something’s public it means they’re allowed to do whatever they want with it. That’s incorrect. The only barrier is whether someone you copy from is willing to bring legal action.
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    There are a number of exceptions to copyright, and at least in the US, the supreme court's understanding of "transformativeness" applies to chatgpt and other similar tech. The relevant quote, originally written in 1990 and cited in 94, is thus: " [If] the secondary use adds value to the original--if the quoted matter is used as raw material, transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings--this is the very type of activity that the fair use doctrine intends to protect for the enrichment of society. " We've wandered into uncharted legal territory with only a few light posts guiding the way. Nothing about this is settled or obvious.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - olalonde 4y ago
    AFAIK, using copyrighted works for training machine learning models does not infringe on copyrights and falls under fair use. https://www.thefashionlaw.com/ai-trained-on-copyrighted-works-when-is-it-fair-use/ https://www.thefashionlaw.com/ai-trained-on-copyrighted-work...
- gumballindie 4y ago
  > it's not private. Doesn't need to be private in order to be copyrighted.
  - olalonde 4y ago
    I don't think anyone is arguing that copyright laws shouldn't apply to ChatGPT. In practice, I believe it's quite rare for ChatGPT to output copyrighted works but if does, the copyright holder would indeed have a claim against OpenAI for redistributing their work without permission. That being said, this is not what the current ban is about. The ban was ordered by GDPR regulators who have suddenly decided that using publicly available information on the web to train machine learning models is not allowed due to "privacy concerns". It has nothing to do with copyright.
- manuelmoreale 4y ago
  By this way of reasoning, if you’re going around minding your own business not having your face covered I can just take a picture of you and your face and use it to train my models? I mean, it’s out there, it’s not behind a paywall so it’s not private. We can’t just live in a world where something is by default up for grabs by big companies just because it’s out there.

If I'm a person and I limit the way you scrape my private blog, It's not clear how I'm entrenching anyone

zdragnar 4y ago

If it's on the internet and not behind a paywall, it's not private.

orev 4y ago
In the US, anything you create is automatically copyrighted and you have full rights to decide who does what with it, unless you explicitly waive those rights, even if you post it publicly on the Internet. Too many people seem to think that just because something’s public it means they’re allowed to do whatever they want with it. That’s incorrect. The only barrier is whether someone you copy from is willing to bring legal action.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  There are a number of exceptions to copyright, and at least in the US, the supreme court's understanding of "transformativeness" applies to chatgpt and other similar tech. The relevant quote, originally written in 1990 and cited in 94, is thus: " [If] the secondary use adds value to the original--if the quoted matter is used as raw material, transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings--this is the very type of activity that the fair use doctrine intends to protect for the enrichment of society. " We've wandered into uncharted legal territory with only a few light posts guiding the way. Nothing about this is settled or obvious.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- olalonde 4y ago
  AFAIK, using copyrighted works for training machine learning models does not infringe on copyrights and falls under fair use. https://www.thefashionlaw.com/ai-trained-on-copyrighted-works-when-is-it-fair-use/ https://www.thefashionlaw.com/ai-trained-on-copyrighted-work...
gumballindie 4y ago
> it's not private. Doesn't need to be private in order to be copyrighted.
- olalonde 4y ago
  I don't think anyone is arguing that copyright laws shouldn't apply to ChatGPT. In practice, I believe it's quite rare for ChatGPT to output copyrighted works but if does, the copyright holder would indeed have a claim against OpenAI for redistributing their work without permission. That being said, this is not what the current ban is about. The ban was ordered by GDPR regulators who have suddenly decided that using publicly available information on the web to train machine learning models is not allowed due to "privacy concerns". It has nothing to do with copyright.
manuelmoreale 4y ago
By this way of reasoning, if you’re going around minding your own business not having your face covered I can just take a picture of you and your face and use it to train my models? I mean, it’s out there, it’s not behind a paywall so it’s not private. We can’t just live in a world where something is by default up for grabs by big companies just because it’s out there.