3 ms·
Case #1 – I host a database and fill it with copyrighted data. You come by and make queries and access that data. Cast #2 – I host a blank database. You fill i
by paxys 3y ago
Case #1 – I host a database and fill it with copyrighted data. You come by and make queries and access that data.
Cast #2 – I host a blank database. You fill it up with copyrighted data, and later access that data.
You are alluding to case 2, and yes over there it is debatable who committed the violation. You will mostly likely be at fault if it fits under section 230.
This situation however is case 1. OpenAI is the one who accessed the copyrighted data, copied it, hosts it, and is giving everyone access to it. There is zero argument that the user is at fault here (which is what they are trying to say in this blog post).
- megaman821 3y agoChatGPT isn't a lookup database, it is a generative system. I doubt the court is going to demand perfection from them, only that they don't make producing copyrighted materials trivially easy, and when new ways are found that they respond in a reasonable amount of time to stop it.
- paxys 3y agoPlenty of the examples given in NYT's lawsuit would qualify as "trivially easy".
- megaman821 3y agoThat would be fine by me if the court found that, but ruled that training is fair use. Ideally the DMCA would be extended to outline what generative platforms need to do to discourage the output of copyrighted materials.
- LargeTomato 3y ago> it is a generative system. It's supposed to be, but it regurgitated the NYT article and that's the problem.