3 ms·

> Perhaps you think it's fine if I took a copy of ChatGPT model without permission [...] There are laws about copyright and trade secret. > They haven't lost

by xscott 1y ago

> Perhaps you think it's fine if I took a copy of ChatGPT model without permission [...] There are laws about copyright and trade secret. > They haven't lost anything - just took a copy..... Correct. This is why it's a copyright violation and not a theft. > [...] fair use.... Fair use is also a legal term, and it has some (reasonably) specific meanings. It's noteworthy that the large copyright protection industries don't respect those terms and have automated DMCA takedowns to abuse people for things which age legal: "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

DrScientist 1y ago
> This is why it's a copyright violation and not a theft. But is it? Copying the OpenAI model is only potentially copyright - as you have to prove it's not exempt via fair use etc. Note I'm not selling it on - I'm just selling the output - which isn't soley determined by the model - it's determined by the model plus random numbers plus context - what I'm selling is only partly determined by the source model I copied. Now if I copied it and used it to undercut your original buisness - then clearly that's not fair use - but that's rather my point no? These companies have clearly copied source material without permission on a huge scale - but because it's copying and the people haven't lost the original - there is in effect another test - do the original people lose out as result etc. It's quite clear - say in the news industry which might be supported by advertising - that copying content and then presenting a summary version so that people never visit the source material is clearly damaging the underlying copyright holders.

by xscott 1y ago

DrScientist 1y ago

> This is why it's a copyright violation and not a theft. But is it? Copying the OpenAI model is only potentially copyright - as you have to prove it's not exempt via fair use etc. Note I'm not selling it on - I'm just selling the output - which isn't soley determined by the model - it's determined by the model plus random numbers plus context - what I'm selling is only partly determined by the source model I copied. Now if I copied it and used it to undercut your original buisness - then clearly that's not fair use - but that's rather my point no? These companies have clearly copied source material without permission on a huge scale - but because it's copying and the people haven't lost the original - there is in effect another test - do the original people lose out as result etc. It's quite clear - say in the news industry which might be supported by advertising - that copying content and then presenting a summary version so that people never visit the source material is clearly damaging the underlying copyright holders.