3 ms·

Do you really think that OpenAI has deleted the data it has scraped? Don't you think OpenAI is storing all this scraped data at this moment on some fileservers

Do you really think that OpenAI has deleted the data it has scraped? Don't you think OpenAI is storing all this scraped data at this moment on some fileservers in order to re-scan this data in the future to create better models? Models which may even contain verbatim copies of that data internally but prevent access to it through self-censorship? In any case it's a "Yes, we have all this copyrighted data and we're constantly (re)using it to produce derived works (in order to get wealthy)". How can this be legal? If that were legal, then I should be able to copy all the books in a library and keep them on a self-hosted, private server for my or my companies use, as long as I don't quote too much of that information. But I should be able to have all that data and do close to whatever I want with it. And if this were legal, why shouldn't it be legal to request a copy of all the data from a library and obtain access to it via a download link?

edanm 2y ago
What? This makes no sense. Of course you're allowed to own copyrighted material. That's the whole point. I have bookshelves worth of copyrighted material at home at this very minute. If you're implying that the scraping and storing of the things itself breaks copyright, then maybe, but I don't think so? If you're saying that training on copyrighted material breaks copyright, then yes, that's the whole argument. But just having copyrighted material on a server somewhere, if obtained legally, is not by itself illegal.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  Not the other poster, but chiming in here that: > If you're implying that the scraping and storing of the things itself breaks copyright, then maybe, but I don't think so? Suppose I "scrape and store" every book I ever borrow or temporarily-owned, using the copies to fill several shelves in my own personal library-room. Yes, that's still copyright infringement, even if I'm the only one reading them. > But just having copyrighted material on a server somewhere, if obtained legally, is not by itself illegal. I see two points of confusion here: 1. The difference between having copies and making copies. 2. The difference between "infringing" versus "actually illegal." Copyright is about the right to make copies. Simply having an unauthorized copy is no big deal, it's making unauthorized copies where you can get in trouble. Also, it is generally held that the "copies" of bytes in the network etc. do not count, but if you start doing "Save As" on everything to create your own archives of the news site, then that's another story.
  - edanm 2y ago
    > Suppose I "scrape and store" every book I ever borrow or temporarily-owned, using the copies to fill several shelves in my own personal library-room. Yes, but you don't know that they did that. They could've just bought legal access to copyrighted material in many cases. E.g. if I pay for an NYT subscription that gives me the entire back catalogue of the NYT, then I'm legally allowed to own it. Whether I'm allowed to train models on it is, of course, a new and separate (and fascinating) legal question.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - Terr_ 2y ago
      > Yes, but you don't know that they did that. They could've just bought [a license to reproduce the] material in many cases. We do know they didn't, because many entities they could have bought a license from started suing them for not getting one! > If I pay for an NYT subscription that gives me the entire back catalogue of the NYT, then I'm legally allowed to own it. Almost every single service of that type is merely giving you permission to access their copy for the duration of your subscription. They are never giving you a license to duplicate the whole catalog into a perpetual personal copy.
- omnimus 2y ago
  “Obtained legally” implies that they have licensed the material for machine learning - which they didnt because it learns “like a human”. So i guess netflix subscription is enough. And since the machine has to learn on frames we just have to copy every frame to image and store it in our dataset but thats just a technicality. Also even if you explicitly prohibit use of your copyrighted material it doesnt matter because “its like human” it would be discrimination. Nah this is breach of current copyright laws in many many ways. Tech sector is as usual just running away with it hoping nobody will notice untill they manage to change the laws to suit them.
  - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
    Whether it's a beach of copyright law is what the court cases are to decide. I wouldn't bet either way.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    > which they didnt because it learns “like a human” My preferred rejoinder: If it's so much like a human that it qualifies under copyright law, then we ought to be talking about whether these companies are guilty of (A) enslaving a minor and (B) being material accomplices in any copyright infringement minor commits under their control.

edanm 2y ago

What? This makes no sense. Of course you're allowed to own copyrighted material. That's the whole point. I have bookshelves worth of copyrighted material at home at this very minute. If you're implying that the scraping and storing of the things itself breaks copyright, then maybe, but I don't think so? If you're saying that training on copyrighted material breaks copyright, then yes, that's the whole argument. But just having copyrighted material on a server somewhere, if obtained legally, is not by itself illegal.

Terr_ 2y ago
Not the other poster, but chiming in here that: > If you're implying that the scraping and storing of the things itself breaks copyright, then maybe, but I don't think so? Suppose I "scrape and store" every book I ever borrow or temporarily-owned, using the copies to fill several shelves in my own personal library-room. Yes, that's still copyright infringement, even if I'm the only one reading them. > But just having copyrighted material on a server somewhere, if obtained legally, is not by itself illegal. I see two points of confusion here: 1. The difference between having copies and making copies. 2. The difference between "infringing" versus "actually illegal." Copyright is about the right to make copies. Simply having an unauthorized copy is no big deal, it's making unauthorized copies where you can get in trouble. Also, it is generally held that the "copies" of bytes in the network etc. do not count, but if you start doing "Save As" on everything to create your own archives of the news site, then that's another story.
- edanm 2y ago
  > Suppose I "scrape and store" every book I ever borrow or temporarily-owned, using the copies to fill several shelves in my own personal library-room. Yes, but you don't know that they did that. They could've just bought legal access to copyrighted material in many cases. E.g. if I pay for an NYT subscription that gives me the entire back catalogue of the NYT, then I'm legally allowed to own it. Whether I'm allowed to train models on it is, of course, a new and separate (and fascinating) legal question.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    > Yes, but you don't know that they did that. They could've just bought [a license to reproduce the] material in many cases. We do know they didn't, because many entities they could have bought a license from started suing them for not getting one! > If I pay for an NYT subscription that gives me the entire back catalogue of the NYT, then I'm legally allowed to own it. Almost every single service of that type is merely giving you permission to access their copy for the duration of your subscription. They are never giving you a license to duplicate the whole catalog into a perpetual personal copy.
omnimus 2y ago
“Obtained legally” implies that they have licensed the material for machine learning - which they didnt because it learns “like a human”. So i guess netflix subscription is enough. And since the machine has to learn on frames we just have to copy every frame to image and store it in our dataset but thats just a technicality. Also even if you explicitly prohibit use of your copyrighted material it doesnt matter because “its like human” it would be discrimination. Nah this is breach of current copyright laws in many many ways. Tech sector is as usual just running away with it hoping nobody will notice untill they manage to change the laws to suit them.
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  Whether it's a beach of copyright law is what the court cases are to decide. I wouldn't bet either way.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  > which they didnt because it learns “like a human” My preferred rejoinder: If it's so much like a human that it qualifies under copyright law, then we ought to be talking about whether these companies are guilty of (A) enslaving a minor and (B) being material accomplices in any copyright infringement minor commits under their control.