5 ms·
Two things: 1) I’m generally copyleft and would argue that copyright as we know it is nonsensical in the digital era and needs to be entirely rebuilt to make a
by dcow 3y ago
Two things:
1) I’m generally copyleft and would argue that copyright as we know it is nonsensical in the digital era and needs to be entirely rebuilt to make any sense whatsoever. And that as is it harms the commons more than it protects creators. So yeah a fileserver has always been a game changer just like the printing press was and we’re far behind as a society, legally.
2) When a computer system does reproduce copyrighted content verbatim, it’s infringement the same as if a human did it from memory. That wasn’t my point. My point was that use of copyrighted content to train the model is fair use because it’s no different from a human consuming the content and committing it to memory.
- blackoil 3y agoCopyleft licenses are a form of copyright. Unless it is some other meaning I am not aware of with left-right word play.
- jazzyjackson 3y agoOn one hand, copyleft licenses are a creative form of copyright to enforce the wishes of the author to allow derivative works under the condition they are also distributed freely. Let's call it weak copyleft, the pragmatic variety. OTOH are copyright abolitionists who are offended by the notion that their freedom to copy and modify code on their own harddisk could be restricted by a mere "license", to them the notion of intellectual property is poppycock. The Strong Copylefties consider GPL a necessary evil, a way to use their enemies' tools against them, to spread their ideals of free culture amidst a corporatist hellscape. Or it could merely be someone taking the naïve reading of "anti-copyright"
- dmbche 3y agoBut the human that consumed the content paid for it didn't they?
- hiatus 3y agoWhat if they heard it on the radio? Or read it in a library?
- dmbche 3y agoThe model didn't hear it on the radio or had to access a library, it was directly fed raw copyrighted media. There are no such nuances here. The act of getting heaps of copyrighted media for commercial use without paying clearely breaks copyright
- dcow 3y agoSo if I hear a song on the radio and it inspires my commercial purposes, then what? Point being: whether a work is used commercially is not relevant. It's common that we think it is, but it's not. I first read about an LRU cache in my operating systems textbook and later used the concept in a commercial work. I have not committed copyright infringement.
- dmbche 3y agoThen nothing - you didn't gather massive amounts of raw copyrighted goods and consumed them in a comercial goal without paying. This LLMs are not trained on the radio, especially not exclusively. Edit0: Did you get access to this book that inspired you legally, as in at a library, during a class, or having bought it yourself? Was it fair use? Because none of those look like getting heaps of copyrighted stuff for free and claiming you didn't. If instead you stole the book - then yes, this is similar. I don't care what you do with it - can't steal it and assume you are respecting copyright.
- dcow 3y agoI am a product of the impressions left by massive heaps of copyrighted content. One song on the radio is just a rhetorical device. If OpenAI rented all humanity’s media from a library and used them to train an AI model then that seems 100% ethical to me. Now if you ask the model to recite the script to Breaking Bad and it does so perfectly and I think that grants me copyright authority over it then we’re going to have problems. It’s just not the model or tool’s problem.