3 ms·
There is a world of difference between a corporation ingesting original works for the purposes of automatically, at scale generating derivative works for profit
by strogonoff 11mo ago
There is a world of difference between a corporation ingesting original works for the purposes of automatically, at scale generating derivative works for profit and a community of unpaid human volunteers working for a non-profit maintaining a public benefit encyplopedia.
Saying that merely denying the motion to dismiss claims that ChatGPT outputs infringed the rights of authors such as George R.R. Martin and David Baldacci is a “fundamental assault” on the idea-expression distinction as applied to works of fiction, and especially that it puts Wikipedia in crosshairs is beyond a stretch.
- chrismorgan 11mo agoA motion to dismiss amounts is saying “come on, that’s ridiculous”. Denying the motion says “no, it’s not ridiculous; we may still decide it’s wrong, but it’s not ridiculous”. If you consider it outrageous, as OP does (and I’m inclined to agree), the fact that the judge isn’t willing to laugh it out of court is an assault on your interpretation of copyright law.
- strogonoff 11mo agoExactly. To call it so ridiculous that it doesn’t even warrant court time is a massive stretch, considering strong public concern on that exact question, as well as the spirit and goals of IP law. Like with personal data privacy, it is not likely to be of consequence to big tech with lobby power, but dismissing it outright would show shameless levels of corruption.