3 ms·

>We are allowed to view and consume it, to be influenced by it, and under many circumstances even outright copy it. People keep saying this but it's actually m

>We are allowed to view and consume it, to be influenced by it, and under many circumstances even outright copy it. People keep saying this but it's actually much more complicated, and in many cases you can't view copyrighted content. An example, MicroSoft employees are not permitted to view or learn from an open source (GPL-2) terminal emulator: https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/issues/10462#issuecomment-873515286 https://github.com/microsoft/terminal/issues/10462#issuecomm... Another example is proprietary software that may have it's source available, either intentionally or not. If you view this and then work on something related to it, like WINE for example, you are definitely at risk of being successfully sued. If you worked at MicroSoft and worked on Windows, you would not be able to participate in WINE development at all without violating copyright. If you viewed leaked Windows source code you also would not be able to participate in WINE development. An interesting question that I have, is whether training on proprietary, non-trade-secret sources would be allowed. Something like unreal engine, where you can view the source but it's still proprietary. Another question is whether training on leaked sources of proprietary and private but non-trade-secret code, like source dumps of Windows is legal.

shkkmo 3y ago
Your link isn't very clear, but I think your are talking about the "clean room design" strategy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design The way this works is they way many of us are arguing that AI and copyright should work. Vieiwing (or training on) copyrighted work isn't copyright infringement. What can be copyright infringement is using an employee who has viewed (or a model that was trained on) copyrighted work to create a duplication of that work. In most of the examples of infringing output that I've seen, the prompt is pretty explicit in its request to duplicate copyrighted material. Models that produce copyrighted content when not explicitly asked for will have trouble getting traction among users who are concerned about the risk of infringement (such the examples you listed.) I also see this approach opening an opportunity for models that acquire specific licenses for the content they train on that would grant licenses to the users of the model to duplicate some or all of the copyrighted works. The responsibility for how a model is used should rest primarily on the user, not the model trainers.

shkkmo 3y ago

Your link isn't very clear, but I think your are talking about the "clean room design" strategy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design The way this works is they way many of us are arguing that AI and copyright should work. Vieiwing (or training on) copyrighted work isn't copyright infringement. What can be copyright infringement is using an employee who has viewed (or a model that was trained on) copyrighted work to create a duplication of that work. In most of the examples of infringing output that I've seen, the prompt is pretty explicit in its request to duplicate copyrighted material. Models that produce copyrighted content when not explicitly asked for will have trouble getting traction among users who are concerned about the risk of infringement (such the examples you listed.) I also see this approach opening an opportunity for models that acquire specific licenses for the content they train on that would grant licenses to the users of the model to duplicate some or all of the copyrighted works. The responsibility for how a model is used should rest primarily on the user, not the model trainers.