4 ms·
Copyright doesn’t apply to consumption of a work, only redistribution. For example, it is not a violation of copyright for you to make many copies of a movie fo
by cmdli 3y ago
Copyright doesn’t apply to consumption of a work, only redistribution. For example, it is not a violation of copyright for you to make many copies of a movie for personal use. Similarly, it is not a violation of copyright for an artist to learn by looking at other works, even if they then compete against the original work. OpenAI’s system is much more similar to calculating statistics from public artwork than copying and redistributing artwork.
- rpdillon 3y ago> For example, it is not a violation of copyright for you to make many copies of a movie for personal use. This likely varies by jurisdiction, but in the United States, copyright law covers four exclusive rights: 1. The right to make copies 2. The right to distribute copies 3. The right to create derivative works 4. The right to publicly perform the work Making copies for personal use absolutely violates the first of these exclusive rights.
- marcinzm 3y agoSure if you utterly ignore all of the fair use parts of US copyright law.
- jazzyjackson 3y agoThe law is not clear, otherwise it wouldn't have to go to the supreme court to contrive the notion of "time-shifting" to allow for making personal copies. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Uni....
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- marcinzm 3y agoSure which is why saying it's absolutely a violation isn't a correct interpretation. So is saying it's absolutely not a violation. Even if the supreme court rules on the issue it's not absolutely anything because that ruling only applies until a future supreme court potentially changes its mind.
- rpdillon 3y agoI understand how my use of "absolutely" could be misleading. I'll attempt to clarify. My understanding of the reality: * Violations of those four rights give copyright holders standing to sue over duplication. * Fair Use is a defense against that violation. What I was trying to get at in my first post above is that it is a violation of copyright law as the law is written, and because of this, you expose yourself to lawsuits when you make copies for personal use (assuming anyone could ever find out...I'm not, and never have, argued that copyright law is correct or good). The fact that you can defend yourself using a Fair Use defense is also important and a good point, but still requires hiring a lawyer, going to court, and winning. In my book, this is quite a bit different than saying it's not a violation. IANAL, though I follow this fairly closely, and I'm not aware of any cases that have established that copying for personal use is Fair Use; I'd be very happy to read through a decision that establishes this!
- marcinzm 3y agoIn the US you can be sued for anything by anyone so it's a question of degrees of risk rather than absolutes.
- rpdillon 3y agoYes, I think we agree.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> What I was trying to get at in my first post above is that it is a violation of copyright law as the law is written Copyright law “as the law is written” says fair use is not a violation. 17 USC § 107: “Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work [...] is not an infringement of copyright.”