3 ms·

The main excerpt to me: > The only claim under California's unfair competition law that was allowed to proceed alleged that OpenAI used copyrighted works to tr

The main excerpt to me: > The only claim under California's unfair competition law that was allowed to proceed alleged that OpenAI used copyrighted works to train ChatGPT without authors' permission. Because the state law broadly defines what's considered "unfair," Martínez-Olguín said that it's possible that OpenAI's use of the training data "may constitute an unfair practice."

appplication 3y ago
Is it just me or is that really the main and most consequential claim? Title feels misleading.
- tailspin2019 3y ago
  Yeah agreed, and also the general direction this is heading in feels a bit strange to me - we can debate the merits of current copyright law - but the indisputable fact is that the training material came from *pirated* copies of these author’s copyrighted works. If we are to believe the much used arguments against piracy that we’ve been fed over the last 30+ years (mainly by deep pocketed media companies) then piracy is stealing and if you take stolen material and use it to produce a profitable commercial service then surely that’s a clear cut case in favour of the copyright owners? Otherwise WTF have we been prosecuting individuals for all these years for pirating movies and music etc? And here’s the injury: the authors did not get paid for their copyrighted work. Whether you agree with the law or not, OpenAI at the very least should have bought a copy of every book they trained on - and that doesn’t even get into the question of whether they even had the right to train on that material even if they had paid for it. They didn’t do that. They used stolen copies instead. I don’t understand how it could go any other way. I do get the judge’s reluctance to decide that every bit of output of ChatGPT constitutes copyright infringement - that’s much harder to argue. I’m not passionately against OpenAI - I pay them money - but I am concerned about this “training material” sourcing issue just being swept under the rug. AI advancements clearly do impact artists, authors and other creators of works… they’ll be even more screwed if we just throw copyright law completely out of the window at the same time.
  - wmf 3y ago
    The piracy argument can be fixed by OpenAI buying one copy of each work. The overall question of whether they're allowed to train on copyrighted material without permission seems much larger and more interesting.
    - salawat 3y ago
      May not be that easy. It may be the case we'll find that (in much the way as tech has made popular ironically) authors/IP creators aren't willing to sell "machine training rights" to their work. A concept that could find itself magicked into existence by artists/publishers.
      - KoolKat23 3y ago
        Legally if they sell it, they no longer own it and can't determine how it is used. If they license it, that's a different story (they can make a claim of how I breached terms of use, still no copyright issue though). They have absolutely no say in how I use the book they sold to me. Only if I reproduce that book, the actual physical reproduced work is of concern to copyright law, nothing else (my use of the book I bought from you is of no concern).
        salawat 3y ago
        All it takes is a EULA page in the book they sell you to remedy that; a practice well trod by the tech industry to establish the licensing vs. Assumed First Sale relationship. I find it naive to simply assume that publishers won't play tit-for-tat with those that are trying to indirectly monetize their output. I had hope that a return to First Sale sanity may win the day, but as of late I have a dread we're briskly walking down the path where no one is going to be "selling" in the conventional sense anymore. Not with the stakes at hand.
        KoolKat23 3y ago
        You're 100% and raise a good point.It would only work with digital goods though. At some point people seriously have to realise copyright is just a tool with pro's and con's, a balancing act between differing interests. I agree the principle of first sale should apply even to digital goods. There's some hope in the EU that this is on occasion the case, but much room for improvement everywhere.

appplication 3y ago

Is it just me or is that really the main and most consequential claim? Title feels misleading.

tailspin2019 3y ago
Yeah agreed, and also the general direction this is heading in feels a bit strange to me - we can debate the merits of current copyright law - but the indisputable fact is that the training material came from *pirated* copies of these author’s copyrighted works. If we are to believe the much used arguments against piracy that we’ve been fed over the last 30+ years (mainly by deep pocketed media companies) then piracy is stealing and if you take stolen material and use it to produce a profitable commercial service then surely that’s a clear cut case in favour of the copyright owners? Otherwise WTF have we been prosecuting individuals for all these years for pirating movies and music etc? And here’s the injury: the authors did not get paid for their copyrighted work. Whether you agree with the law or not, OpenAI at the very least should have bought a copy of every book they trained on - and that doesn’t even get into the question of whether they even had the right to train on that material even if they had paid for it. They didn’t do that. They used stolen copies instead. I don’t understand how it could go any other way. I do get the judge’s reluctance to decide that every bit of output of ChatGPT constitutes copyright infringement - that’s much harder to argue. I’m not passionately against OpenAI - I pay them money - but I am concerned about this “training material” sourcing issue just being swept under the rug. AI advancements clearly do impact artists, authors and other creators of works… they’ll be even more screwed if we just throw copyright law completely out of the window at the same time.
- wmf 3y ago
  The piracy argument can be fixed by OpenAI buying one copy of each work. The overall question of whether they're allowed to train on copyrighted material without permission seems much larger and more interesting.
  - salawat 3y ago
    May not be that easy. It may be the case we'll find that (in much the way as tech has made popular ironically) authors/IP creators aren't willing to sell "machine training rights" to their work. A concept that could find itself magicked into existence by artists/publishers.
    - KoolKat23 3y ago
      Legally if they sell it, they no longer own it and can't determine how it is used. If they license it, that's a different story (they can make a claim of how I breached terms of use, still no copyright issue though). They have absolutely no say in how I use the book they sold to me. Only if I reproduce that book, the actual physical reproduced work is of concern to copyright law, nothing else (my use of the book I bought from you is of no concern).
      - salawat 3y ago
        All it takes is a EULA page in the book they sell you to remedy that; a practice well trod by the tech industry to establish the licensing vs. Assumed First Sale relationship. I find it naive to simply assume that publishers won't play tit-for-tat with those that are trying to indirectly monetize their output. I had hope that a return to First Sale sanity may win the day, but as of late I have a dread we're briskly walking down the path where no one is going to be "selling" in the conventional sense anymore. Not with the stakes at hand.
        KoolKat23 3y ago
        You're 100% and raise a good point.It would only work with digital goods though. At some point people seriously have to realise copyright is just a tool with pro's and con's, a balancing act between differing interests. I agree the principle of first sale should apply even to digital goods. There's some hope in the EU that this is on occasion the case, but much room for improvement everywhere.