4 ms·
Right, but those 200 people won't be prosecuted for watching it, which was my point. The example I was thinking about when posting would be putting up a copy of
by jemmyw 2y ago
Right, but those 200 people won't be prosecuted for watching it, which was my point. The example I was thinking about when posting would be putting up a copy of copyright art in a public place. The people in the public place are not breaking the law by looking at it, only the person who placed it... well even then, would the workers who put it up be liable? Probably not, it's not reasonable for someone who puts up billboards to check the copyright license.
- hansmayer 2y agoI do agree with this example in general. But I guess from my point of view, the OpenAI comes across more like the person enabling the use of copyrighted art, and would thus be subject to copyright regulations. Their users I'd see rather as the people viewing the art in public, perhaps unaware of the copyright restrictions. But it also seems like these discussions in themselves are a bit of distraction. If the LLMs worked exactly as they are being hyped up for the third year now, I think we all would get behind the effort. Who would care about copyrights if a magic machine could lead us into the so-called post-scarcity world, right? But sadly it does not appear to be nowhere near that goal, nor will it be, based on what we know about how the technology works. So here we are, discussing if mechanical parrots should read our books :)