3 ms·

The linked paper describes the conditions for fair use as given in 17 U.S.C. § 107, of which the first seven words are "the purpose and character of the use".

The linked paper describes the conditions for fair use as given in 17 U.S.C. § 107, of which the first seven words are "the purpose and character of the use". Law is a field where context is essential: to analyze a particular set of facts you need not solely the text of the law, but the full historical use and interpretation of that text in regards to other sets of facts. Speculation based on what one imagines the law to be is rarely useful in understanding law or legal arguments.

bena 3y ago
The purpose and character of their use, the infringing use, not the purpose and character of the original. The rest of that segment is "including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;" And then you go on to say "context is essential" while using the text of the law to justify your opinion. The "full historical use and interpretation of that text in regards to other sets of facts" has shown that original purpose has little to no bearing on trying to claim fair use. Also, the list is not exhaustive. Those factors are considered, but they're not the entire test. Even the purposes themselves are examples, not an exhaustive list. So why the original was created has no bearing on whether or not you've infringed copyright. Their main thrust however seems to be that they're metaphorically making paper mache whales from shredded copies of whale books. Yes, the entire text of Moby Dick is on that whale, but it is not Moby Dick, you can't extract Moby Dick from it, you couldn't even tell Moby Dick was used in its entirety. Which is a much better argument than "bruh, we gave it to a computer".
- sethrin 3y ago
  Neither of us is purporting to discuss the original intended use. Your quote: > It would be like saying, I'm not consuming this media for enjoyment, but to learn how to create media, therefore it's ok that I'm not compensating the creators for that media. > That would not fly. The copyright statute explicitly contradicts you, by requiring courts to consider the purpose and character of the infringing use. Perhaps you meant to make some other argument?
  - bena 3y ago
    The implication is that the creator made the media for enjoyment and not for study, therefore if you're not enjoying it you can't be infringing on copyright. I can see how that was not clear in my statement. Because part of OpenAI's argument seems to be based on the intent of the creator on how the media is to be consumed. Which doesn't matter.

bena 3y ago

The purpose and character of their use, the infringing use, not the purpose and character of the original. The rest of that segment is "including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;" And then you go on to say "context is essential" while using the text of the law to justify your opinion. The "full historical use and interpretation of that text in regards to other sets of facts" has shown that original purpose has little to no bearing on trying to claim fair use. Also, the list is not exhaustive. Those factors are considered, but they're not the entire test. Even the purposes themselves are examples, not an exhaustive list. So why the original was created has no bearing on whether or not you've infringed copyright. Their main thrust however seems to be that they're metaphorically making paper mache whales from shredded copies of whale books. Yes, the entire text of Moby Dick is on that whale, but it is not Moby Dick, you can't extract Moby Dick from it, you couldn't even tell Moby Dick was used in its entirety. Which is a much better argument than "bruh, we gave it to a computer".

sethrin 3y ago
Neither of us is purporting to discuss the original intended use. Your quote: > It would be like saying, I'm not consuming this media for enjoyment, but to learn how to create media, therefore it's ok that I'm not compensating the creators for that media. > That would not fly. The copyright statute explicitly contradicts you, by requiring courts to consider the purpose and character of the infringing use. Perhaps you meant to make some other argument?
- bena 3y ago
  The implication is that the creator made the media for enjoyment and not for study, therefore if you're not enjoying it you can't be infringing on copyright. I can see how that was not clear in my statement. Because part of OpenAI's argument seems to be based on the intent of the creator on how the media is to be consumed. Which doesn't matter.