I think that with respect to content that’s already on microsoft.com, the social contract of that content since the ‘90s has been that it is fair use. Anyone can copy it, recreate with it, reproduce with it. That has been “freeware,” if you like, that’s been the understanding.
Yeah, that’s how I’ve always thought of it.
Copyright infrigment is not theft, training models is not copyright infringement either. We need a law equivalent to when an artist says “he’s inpired by someone else” . That it specifically is illegal to do that without permission if you use a machine. That will force big tech to pay a pittance for it and it will instakill all the small player.
Creating a derivative work without a license to do so would be copyright infringement.
Copyright Infringment strawman argument. When considering AI, we are not talking legal copyright infringement in the relationship between humans vs AI. Humans are mostly concerned with being obsoleted by Big Tech so the real issue is Intellectual Property Theft.
artificial INTELLIGENCE stole our Intellectual Property
Do you see it now?
It’s only theft as long as you cling to the failed “copyright” model.
Big tech couldn’t steal anything if we don’t respect their property rights in the first place.
By reifying copyright under the AI paradigm, we maintain big tech’s power over us.
The truth is chatgpt belong to us. ClosedAI is just the compiler of the data.
If we finally end the failed experiment of copyright, we destroy their mote.
What I see is a system of laws that came about during the Middle Ages and have been manipulated by the powers that be to kill off any good parts of them.
We all knew copyright was broken. It was broken before my grandparents were born. It didn’t encourage artists or promise them proper income, it didn’t allow creations to gradually move into public domain. It punished all forms of innovation from player pianos to fanfiction on Tumblr.
Apparently he thinks data is like the ducks you find in the park
In that I can take a picture of them and you wouldn’t notice or be impacted by it?
You can take the ducks you know
Clearly ducks you find in the park is just free meat. Why else would they be there?
To ask of you have any grapes
Wait, you can steal from those ducks?
No one ever tells you this, but you can just take the ducks. Just like with the city pigeons. Just make sure you don’t take a government drone by accident.
They’re the same thing.
DMCA for them, no DMCA for us.
You’re always morally justified to steal from Microsoft
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Microsoft AI boss Mustafa Suleyman incorrectly believes that the moment you publish anything on the open web, it becomes “freeware” that anyone can freely copy and use.
When CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin asked him whether “AI companies have effectively stolen the world’s IP,” he said:
That certainly hasn’t kept many AI companies from claiming that training on copyrighted content is “fair use,” but most haven’t been as brazen as Suleyman when talking about it.
Speaking of brazen, he’s got a choice quote about the purpose of humanity shortly after his “fair use” remark:
Suleyman does seem to think there’s something to the robots.txt idea — that specifying which bots can’t scrape a particular website within a text file might keep people from taking its content.
Disclosure: Vox Media, The Verge’s parent company, has a technology and content deal with OpenAI.
The original article contains 351 words, the summary contains 139 words. Saved 60%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Look, guys! The TLDR bot is stealing!
Yeps. The same way when my coworkers talk about sports ball without the expressed permission of multiple corporations.
Impressive that your coworkers discuss the events exclusively by recalling 60% of the announcer’s words and then quoting them verbatim.
I am almost afraid to go down this rabbit hole but I have no idea what you are talking about.
I got the math the wrong way around but read the bottom of the bot’s post. The bot’s job is to cut the fluff out of articles, and it copy/pastes the remaining text for us to read here.
So my comment should have said 40%, but the point was if we’re comparing what the bot did with your coworkers talking about a game, it’d be more akin to them reciting the commentator verbatim.
I thought that even discussing the game without the express permission of the media company you used to watch and the sports league was a violation. Not sure why you are bringing commentary on commentary in it. Again not a sports ball guy but when I do hear people talk about sports they are talking about sports not the person talkimg about sports.
Fair use once it’s posted on the web? Thank you very much for the framework to pirate anything and everything.
fun fact, windows is posted on the web: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows10
Microsoft would prefer that you pirate Windows rather than use Linux, as it further entrenches their dominance in the market.
They mainly make their money off of business licenses anyway, similar to Adobe and Autodesk.
There’s a reason massgravel’s scripts are hosted on Microsoft’s GitHub platform and hasn’t been taken down.
If that’s the case, then why not release a free home version??
They already have a free version of Windows. Just don’t activate it.
My one dark hope is AI will be enough of an impetus for somebody to update DMCA
If that gets updated, then it will favor big corporations.
Only because our “representatives” let them write the law entirely. Imagine if Congress wasn’t filled to the brim with 80 year old fundraisers…
When is the last time a crisis resulted in a better solution for the general public?
And this is why I don’t have ANY moral qualms about pirating shit: they’d do it to us in a heartbeat if there was a buck to be made.
I had some, but not anymore.
*have done
They would?? They are**
I can see a lot of comments against copyright here, but has anyone considered the implications of changes to copyright on copyleft?
I argue copyleft is demonstrably socially useful in locking things open. I do wonder if we’ll end up the two being different legally…
Is his personal-information on the dark-web?
Is he saying that if his personal-information is on the dark-web, then it’s perfectly-OK for everybody & their robot to be using it??
XOR is he saying that there are 2 kinds of law:
1 for protecting his entitlement,
the other for disallowing rights from the lives he consumes, through his beloved herd/corporation/pseudo-person?
( obviously, he’s already answered the latter )
copying is not theft
“Copying is theft” is the argument of corporations for ages, but if they want our data and information, to integrate into their business, then, suddenly they have the rights to it.
If copying is not theft, then we have the rights to copy their software and AI models, as well, since it is available on the open web.
They got themselves into quite a contradiction.
You realize that half of Lemmy is tying themselves in inconsistent logical knots trying to escape the reverse conundrum?
Copying isn’t stealing and never was. Our IP system that artificially restricts information has never made sense in the digital age, and yet now everyone is on here cheering copyright on.
If copying is not theft, then we have the rights to copy their software
Nope false dichotomy, Copying copyrighted material is copyright infringement. Which is illegal.
Oversimplifying the issue makes for an uninformed debate.any content you produce is automatically copyrighted
You wouldn’t download a car!
Yeah, I’m not a fan of AI but I’m generally of the view that anything posted on the internet, visible without a login, is fair game for indexing a search engine, snapshotting a backup (like the internet archive’s Wayback Machine), or running user extensions on (including ad blockers). Is training an AI model all that different?
None of those things replace that content, though.
Look, I dunno if this is legally a copyrights issue, but as a society, I think a lot of people have decided they’re willing to yield to social media and search engine indexers, but not to AI training, you know? The same way I might consent to eating a mango but not a banana.
You can’t be for piracy but against LLMs fair the same reason
And I think most of the people on Lemmy are for piracy,
I’m not in favor of piracy or LLMs. I’m also not a fan of copyright as it exists today (I think we should go back to the 1790 US definition of copyright).
I think a lot of people here on lemmy who are “in favor of piracy” just hate our current copyright system, and that’s quite understandable and I totally agree with them. Having a work protected for your entire lifetime sucks.
The problem with copyright has nothing to do with terms limits. Those exacerbate the problem, but the fundamental problem with copyright and IP law is that it is a system of artificial scarcity where there is no need for one.
Rather than reward creators when their information is used, we hamfistedly try and prevent others from using that information so that people have to pay them to use it sometimes.
Capitalism is flat out the wrong system for distributing digital information, because as soon as information is digitized it is effectively infinitely abundant which sends its value to $0.
Copyright is not a capitalist idea, it’s collectivist. See copyright in the Soviet Union, the initial bill of which was passed in 1925, right near the start of the USSR.
A pure capitalist system would have no copyright, and works would instead be protected through exclusivity (I.e. paywalls) and DRM. Copyright is intended to promote sharing by providing a period of exclusivity (temporary monopoly on a work). Whether it achieves those goals is certainly up for debate.
Long terms go against any benefit to society that copyright might have. I think it does have a benefit, but that benefit is pretty limited and should probably only last 10-15 years. I think eliminating copyright entirely would leave most people worse off and probably mostly benefit large orgs that can afford expensive DRM schemes in much the same way that our current copyright duration disproportionately benefits large orgs.
Yes, it kind of is. A search engine just looks for keywords and links, and that’s all it retains after crawling a site. It’s not producing any derivative works, it’s merely looking up an index of keywords to find matches.
An LLM can essentially reproduce a work, and the whole point is to generate derivative works. So by its very nature, it runs into copyright issues. Whether a particular generated result violates copyright depends on the license of the works it’s based on and how much of those works it uses. So it’s complicated, but there’s very much a copyright argument there.
An LLM can essentially reproduce a work, and the whole point is to generate derivative works. So by its very nature, it runs into copyright issues.
Derivative works are not copyright infringement. If LLMs are spitting out exact copies, or near-enough-to-exact copies, that’s one thing. But as you said, the whole point is to generate derivative works.
Derivative works are not copyright infringement
They absolutely are, unless it’s covered by “fair use.” A “derivative work” doesn’t mean you created something that’s inspired by a work, but that you’ve modified the the work and then distributed the modified version.
My brain also takes information and creates derivative works from it.
Shit, am I also a data thief?
That depends, do you copy verbatim? Or do you process and understand concepts, and then create new works based on that understanding? If you copy verbatim, that’s plagiarism and you’re a thief. If you create your own answer, it’s not.
Current AI doesn’t actually “understand” anything, and “learning” is just grabbing input data. If you ask it a question, it’s not understanding anything, it just matches search terms to the part of the training data that matches, and regurgitates a mix of it, and usually omits the sources. That’s it.
It’s a tricky line in journalism since so much of it is borrowed, and it’s likewise tricky w/ AI, but the main difference IMO is attribution, good journalists cite sources, AI rarely does.
Issue is power imbalance.
There’s a clear difference between a guy in his basement on his personal computer sampling music the original musicians almost never seen a single penny from, and a megacorp trying to drive out creative professionals from the industry in the hopes they can then proceed to hike up the prices to use their generative AI software.
Didnt you hear? We stan draconian IP laws now because AI bad.
Is it that or is it that the laws are selectively applied on little guys and ignored once you make enough money? It certainly looks that way. Once you’ve achieved a level of “fuck you money” it doesn’t matter how unscrupulously you got there. I’m not sure letting the big guys get away with it while little guys still get fucked over is as big of a win as you think it is?
Examples:
The Pirate Bay: Only made enough money to run the site and keep the admins living a middle class lifestyle.
VERDICT: Bad, wrong, and evil. Must be put in jail.
OpenAI: Claims to be non-profit, then spins off for-profit wing. Makes a mint in a deal with Microsoft.
VERDICT: Only the goodest of good people and we must allow them to continue doing so.
The IP laws are stupid but letting fucking rich twats get away with it while regular people will still get fucked by the same rules is kind of a fucking stupid ass hill to die on.
But sure, if we allow the giant companies to do it, SOMEHOW the same rules will “trickle down” to regular people. I think I’ve heard that story before… No, they only make exceptions for people who can basically print money. They’ll still fuck you and me six ways to Sunday for the same.
I mean, the guys who ran Jetflicks, a pirate streaming site, are being hit with potentially 48 year sentences. Longer than a lot of way more serious fucking crimes. I’ve literally seen murderers get half that.
But yeah, somehow, the same rules will end up being applied to us? My ass. They’re literally jailing people for it right now. If that wasn’t the case, maybe this argument would have legs.
But AI companies? Totes okay, bro.
Yes, it is a travesty that people are being hounded for sharing information, but the solution to that isn’t to lock up information tighter by restricting access to the open web and saying if you download something we put up to be freely accessed and then use it in a way we don’t like you owe us.
The solution to bad laws being applied unevenly isn’t to apply the bad laws to everyone equally, its to get rid of the bad laws.
The laws are currently the same for everyone when it comes to what you can use to train an AI with. I, as an individual, can use whatever public facing data I wish to build or fine tune AI models, same as Microsoft.
If we make copyright laws even stronger, the only one getting locked out of the game are the little guys. Microsoft, google and company can afford to pay ridiculous prices for datasets. What they don’t own mainly comes from aggregators like Reddit, Getty, Instagram and Stack.
Boosting copyright laws essentially kill all legal forms of open source AI. It would force the open source scene to go underground as a pirate network and lead to the scenario you mentioned.
Anyone in this thread is creating derivative works and you should not be reading it without the written permission of verge.com’s parent company.
Hey ChatGPT , download “The Boys” for me.
He spoke carelessly, but he didn’t exactly say what the author said he said. You can in fact do many things with it. Copyright doesn’t care what you do if you aren’t copying. That’s the definition of the word.
Isn’t web scraping copying ?
No. It’s only illegal if you republish what you scrape. Absolutely nothing prevents any company from scraping the web and using that information internally.
I think that depends how you write your web scraper. Of course the web scraper is going to load the page, just like your web browser does, which by all accounts is not an issue. What happens after the page is loaded depends on how the software is written.
Well see what the results of the music industry vs suno.ai will be
So I can pirate as many movies as I want as long as I’m only watching them?
Let these rich guys keep talking for a sec. I can get behind this somewhat.
Yes, it’s streamer making a copy. You’re fine. Sharing is caring. Copyright is a mental illness.
Copyright is a mental illness
Well, I happen to have a great deal of respect for and routinely offer my support to those who suffer from mental illnesses, so maybe find a better way to say this that doesn’t denigrate disabled people.
I’m sorry but that’s what illness means. It is not an identity.
he gets paid a lot to not speak carelessly
It’s okay to plagiarize books if they’re in a library.
No you have to run them through an elaborate model first, then it’s totally legit to use someone else’s literal words as if they were your own
You’re describing how human beings learn and create.
I was actually describing a piece of software, which is not considered a human being, and can in fact be treated differently without any legal or philosophical confusion
I mean, that’s how I got through high school. So sure.
