4 ms·

It’s a pro-AI position but not really controversial? My reading is he is saying content that is not under an explicit license for usage, that is made available

It’s a pro-AI position but not really controversial? My reading is he is saying content that is not under an explicit license for usage, that is made available publicly and freely, is fair game for training. > In his remarks, Suleyman claimed that all content shared on the web is available to be used for AI training unless a content producer says otherwise specifically. > "With respect to content that is already on the open web, the social contract of that content since the 90s has been that it is fair use. Anyone can copy it, recreate with it, reproduce with it. That has been freeware, if you like. That's been the understanding," said Suleyman. > "There's a separate category where a website or a publisher or a news organization had explicitly said, 'do not scrape or crawl me for any other reason than indexing me so that other people can find that content.' That's a gray area and I think that's going to work its way through the courts."

dingosity 2y ago
Sure. But this is not what US copyright law says.
fao_ 2y ago
> My reading is he is saying content that is not under an explicit license for usage, that is made available publicly and freely, is fair game for training. In the absence of an explicit copyright, the default copyright is "all rights reserved". Putting something in a public space is not license to reproduce it, however much I might disagree with this position
sublinear 2y ago
I wish someone would define what scraping "open web" means since physical media has been dead for a while. YouTube content? Doxxing people? Archiving books and old video games? Bank transactions? VoIP calls? Why is it potentially ok for AI to copy these things, but if a human does it they get into trouble? We need an exhaustive list and that's probably impossible to define.
- freitzkriesler2 2y ago
  The courts ruled that content can be scraped from the open web legally. From your examples 1. YouTube content: ok because the scraped content becomes derivative works which falls under free use 2. Doxxing people: if the data was already on the web and a human found it then the person was already doxed 3. Bank transactions: are they behind a login wall? Not Ok to scrap 4. VoIP calls: again behind a wall? Not Ok to scrape If a human can find it online without doing anything beyond accessing a public web link then it is Ok to scrape it. It's not the complicated and the law has a series of frameworks that for existing cases. It's not particularly complicated.
  - dingosity 2y ago
    Derivative works are not automatically fair use. Otherwise I could release an album with a Prince song and a Taylor Swift song, claim it's a derivative work and covered under fair use. Again. Try to do this on YouTube (even though YouTube is not the arbiter of what is and isn't fair use, they're just aggressive about removing content.) Doxxing people can give cause to restraint if it's inciting speech. Consider a situation where you say "Hey. I just found Joe Schmo's Address. He lives at 123 Main St., Anytown, DK 10010." Now compare it to when you say "Hey. I just found Joe Schmo's Address. He lives at 123 Main St., Anytown, DK 10010. Joe's a child molester. Let's go burn down his house." or if you call up the local police department and said "Hey. I saw Joe Schmo with Goody Parker in their house at 123 Main St., Anytown, DK 10010. They're molesting a child right now! Hurry, if you're fast you might stop them!" Yeah... I don't remember saying bank transactions were copyrighted or in the public domain. Probably someone elses' comment. VoIP calls? uh... you may want to review the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 18USC2510-2522 before assuming VoIP calls can be intercepted for the purpose of training an AI. You are free to believe anything you can access is fair use. (I mean, maybe in Iceland or Sweden.) But give me a call if you get caught doing this, I can refer you to a decent attorney. (Again... this all assumes you're in the states. International copyright is sort of a wild west. But you would expect MSFT to open up a fully owned offshore subsidiary in a country like Vanuatu or Iceland to evade continental copyright (what is it with islands and copyright???)
  - 2y ago
blinding-streak 2y ago
Fair use is not granted by a social contract, as he hopes. It's granted by courts. Suleyman's interpretation is the most self-serving possible opinion of the circumstances. As Joshua Topolski put it, "Only someone utterly divorced from creation and completely insulated in a bubble of entitlement would have such a distorted view of other people's work like this" [0] [0] https://x.com/joshuatopolsky/status/1806796270402699553?s=19 https://x.com/joshuatopolsky/status/1806796270402699553?s=19
lwranx 2y ago
What nonsense. You can download it, view it, create a search engine index with it. You cannot "recreate with it", "reproduce with it". Interesting that Microsoft openly rejects the DMCA. So we now can all reverse engineer and make available for free all Windows versions, since they have been on the web at some point. I guess Suleyman's statement can be used in court against Microsoft in the next IP trial.

dingosity 2y ago

Sure. But this is not what US copyright law says.

fao_ 2y ago

> My reading is he is saying content that is not under an explicit license for usage, that is made available publicly and freely, is fair game for training. In the absence of an explicit copyright, the default copyright is "all rights reserved". Putting something in a public space is not license to reproduce it, however much I might disagree with this position

sublinear 2y ago

I wish someone would define what scraping "open web" means since physical media has been dead for a while. YouTube content? Doxxing people? Archiving books and old video games? Bank transactions? VoIP calls? Why is it potentially ok for AI to copy these things, but if a human does it they get into trouble? We need an exhaustive list and that's probably impossible to define.

freitzkriesler2 2y ago
The courts ruled that content can be scraped from the open web legally. From your examples 1. YouTube content: ok because the scraped content becomes derivative works which falls under free use 2. Doxxing people: if the data was already on the web and a human found it then the person was already doxed 3. Bank transactions: are they behind a login wall? Not Ok to scrap 4. VoIP calls: again behind a wall? Not Ok to scrape If a human can find it online without doing anything beyond accessing a public web link then it is Ok to scrape it. It's not the complicated and the law has a series of frameworks that for existing cases. It's not particularly complicated.
- dingosity 2y ago
  Derivative works are not automatically fair use. Otherwise I could release an album with a Prince song and a Taylor Swift song, claim it's a derivative work and covered under fair use. Again. Try to do this on YouTube (even though YouTube is not the arbiter of what is and isn't fair use, they're just aggressive about removing content.) Doxxing people can give cause to restraint if it's inciting speech. Consider a situation where you say "Hey. I just found Joe Schmo's Address. He lives at 123 Main St., Anytown, DK 10010." Now compare it to when you say "Hey. I just found Joe Schmo's Address. He lives at 123 Main St., Anytown, DK 10010. Joe's a child molester. Let's go burn down his house." or if you call up the local police department and said "Hey. I saw Joe Schmo with Goody Parker in their house at 123 Main St., Anytown, DK 10010. They're molesting a child right now! Hurry, if you're fast you might stop them!" Yeah... I don't remember saying bank transactions were copyrighted or in the public domain. Probably someone elses' comment. VoIP calls? uh... you may want to review the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 18USC2510-2522 before assuming VoIP calls can be intercepted for the purpose of training an AI. You are free to believe anything you can access is fair use. (I mean, maybe in Iceland or Sweden.) But give me a call if you get caught doing this, I can refer you to a decent attorney. (Again... this all assumes you're in the states. International copyright is sort of a wild west. But you would expect MSFT to open up a fully owned offshore subsidiary in a country like Vanuatu or Iceland to evade continental copyright (what is it with islands and copyright???)
- 2y ago

blinding-streak 2y ago

Fair use is not granted by a social contract, as he hopes. It's granted by courts. Suleyman's interpretation is the most self-serving possible opinion of the circumstances. As Joshua Topolski put it, "Only someone utterly divorced from creation and completely insulated in a bubble of entitlement would have such a distorted view of other people's work like this" [0] [0] https://x.com/joshuatopolsky/status/1806796270402699553?s=19 https://x.com/joshuatopolsky/status/1806796270402699553?s=19

lwranx 2y ago

What nonsense. You can download it, view it, create a search engine index with it. You cannot "recreate with it", "reproduce with it". Interesting that Microsoft openly rejects the DMCA. So we now can all reverse engineer and make available for free all Windows versions, since they have been on the web at some point. I guess Suleyman's statement can be used in court against Microsoft in the next IP trial.