3 ms·

> Machines with no agency cannot infringe copyright. If I took a photo of a page of a book with my iPhone, and the iPhone did image to text on it, that's not th

> Machines with no agency cannot infringe copyright. If I took a photo of a page of a book with my iPhone, and the iPhone did image to text on it, that's not the iPhone's fault. And I would possibly be within my rights to take that photo. I would be infringing if I then published that image or the text that the iPhone generated. > I believe / have the understanding that copyright can only be violated by an entity with agency - and some entity with agency is the one that ends up publishing or redistributing the work. The big problem with this argument is that the machine is not publishing things, OpenAI the company is. They have created the entire circumstances around which this copying can happen. Let's consider the Napster case. If the argument is "software can't violate copyright" then what was the RIAA's problem with a mass-scale copying and sharing of their music? Why was Napster able to be sued into nonexistence? They only created the software, after all. There's precedent here that creators of software can be held liable for the copyright abuses that software leads to or permits. > It is the responsibility of the distributor to comply with the license. By all measures, OpenAI is the distributor of the code here. After all, their software is outputting licensed code.

shagie 2y ago
I draw more parallels between OpenAI and Xerox and the copyright crisis about people making copies of material. https://www.copyright.gov/title37/201/37cfr201-14.html https://www.copyright.gov/title37/201/37cfr201-14.html > The copyright law of the United States (title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. > Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specific conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.” If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of “fair use,” that user may be liable for copyright infringement. > This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copying order if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law. The machine is not at fault for reproducing an exact copy of copyrighted materials. It is perfectly within fair use of copyright if it is used for private study, scholarship, or research. If that person goes beyond that, and uses the reproduction for purposes beyond that then it is that person is liable for infringement - not the machine.
- BeefWellington 2y ago
  To be comparable, Xerox would need to have been the sole holder of all photocopiers everywhere, and charge fees for use. Not to mention you're also then in the physical world. This is why Napster is a far better comparable. It's all software, via the Internet, and was at scales no photocopiers could compete with. Only it goes a step worse than Napster. In Napster's case, they simply built software and services primarily aimed at facilitating P2P file sharing. In OpenAI's case, they themselves are responsible for creating the copies of infringing materials. They performed the scraping, and they perform the distribution.

shagie 2y ago

I draw more parallels between OpenAI and Xerox and the copyright crisis about people making copies of material. https://www.copyright.gov/title37/201/37cfr201-14.html https://www.copyright.gov/title37/201/37cfr201-14.html > The copyright law of the United States (title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. > Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specific conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be “used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research.” If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of “fair use,” that user may be liable for copyright infringement. > This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copying order if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law. The machine is not at fault for reproducing an exact copy of copyrighted materials. It is perfectly within fair use of copyright if it is used for private study, scholarship, or research. If that person goes beyond that, and uses the reproduction for purposes beyond that then it is that person is liable for infringement - not the machine.

BeefWellington 2y ago
To be comparable, Xerox would need to have been the sole holder of all photocopiers everywhere, and charge fees for use. Not to mention you're also then in the physical world. This is why Napster is a far better comparable. It's all software, via the Internet, and was at scales no photocopiers could compete with. Only it goes a step worse than Napster. In Napster's case, they simply built software and services primarily aimed at facilitating P2P file sharing. In OpenAI's case, they themselves are responsible for creating the copies of infringing materials. They performed the scraping, and they perform the distribution.