Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 599 posts

Re: Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement

#391

Post by echelon »

preseinger wrote: post #379
echelon wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's her and her legal team's homework assignment.

no, it isn't it's an unsatisfiable requirement, and unnecessary to substantiate the legal claims it's dumb to talk about

> it's an unsatisfiable requirement,

There's a wealth of primary literature describing means to probe models for the training data. There's also discovery and a whole host of other processes to answer this question.

The plaintiff that filed the lawsuit should prove what they allege.

> unnecessary to substantiate the legal claims

Why?

What if the model has absolutely zero of her data in it? Should she even be allowed to bring this case to court?

> it's dumb to talk about

Absolutely not! It's central to the entire case.

Even if her data is in the model, there's still a question of whether or not she should be compensated. I'd argue no for the same reason that babies that grow up watching Disney don't owe their entire intellectual output to the company.

Re: Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement

#392

Post by Zuiii »

WillAdams wrote: post #351
thrixton wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d more ask what the cost vs benefits are of keeping the existing scheme, it’s not free to run all these DRM services, prosecute offenders etc… Not to say I support no copyright…

The benefit of the existing scheme is that new works get created, and some of them are even copy-edited and published. How many texts are created which are explicitly placed in the public domain and from which the authors have made a conscious decision not to profit thereby?

> The benefit of the existing scheme is that new works get created, and some of them are even copy-edited and published.

How do you know that this benefit wouldn't exist in other schemes? Look at permissive open source software which is essentially public domain + shield from liability. No copyright does not mean no compensation. It just means different compensation that doesn't deprave other people of their right to share information.

Unlike GP, I support the complete abolishment of Copyright. Society needs to find another scheme to reward work. Perhaps kickstarter-style firms that direct oversight over funded projects or some other scheme that doesn't cause so much harm.

Re: Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement

#394

Post by bryans »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #302
tzs wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US permission is required to make copies, prepare derivative works, distribute copies, publicly perform the work, or publicly display the work [1]. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106

Right, the question is, when my computer requests a file from your computer, which one of us is "making a copy" ? It becomes less ambiguous to ask who is doing the publishing. In a physical analogy, if someone is selling bootleg DVDs on the street, I don't think anyone ever got busted for being a customer.

> Right, the question is, when my computer requests a file from your computer, which one of us is "making a copy" ? It becomes less ambiguous to ask who is doing the publishing.

That question is irrelevant in a discussion about legality, because it doesn't matter who physically made the copy at the time of transfer. It only matters if the first party has the legal rights to distribute it, which they don't. Since you are knowingly taking possession of copyrighted property that they don't have the rights to, then you have now violated the copyright by obtaining an illegal reproduction.

> In a physical analogy, if someone is selling bootleg DVDs on the street, I don't think anyone ever got busted for being a customer.

Just because you don't get arrested for purchasing a bootleg DVD, doesn't make it legal. Not all illegal things involve arrest or prosecution. Lots of illegal things can only result in civil lawsuits. This is one of those things. The reason the seller of the bootleg DVDs can be arrested, is because the cities where bootleg sales are most common have laws specifically targeting the advertisement and sale of copyrighted works that were reproduced illegally. If you buy one, you're still violating the copyright and the MPAA could file a lawsuit if they had any evidence of your purchase and felt it was worth their time.

Re: Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement

#395

Post by Zambyte »

698969 wrote: post #307
holmesworcester wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's take a second to remember that copyright is the reason ~every child doesn't have access to ~every book ever written. While it might be too disruptive to eliminate copyright overnight, we should remember that our world will be much better and improve much faster to the extent we can reduce copyright's impact. And we should cheer it on when it happens. A majority of the world's population in 2023 has a smartphone…

Then most people stop writing books because they can't get paid for their time/effort and ~every child will be stuck with outdated knowledge within a decade.

Copyright is much newer than books.

Re: Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement

#396

Post by bryans »

beej71 wrote: post #385
bryans wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Possession of copyrighted material in itself is not illegal. The means of procurement matters. If they are in possession of copyrighted material because someone without the proper rights gave it to them illegally, then the possession itself is also illegal. It's illegal to own knowingly stolen property in all 50 US states and most countries, and while we could argue to the end of days about whether copying a file t…

Is possession of a pirated work the same as possession of stolen property, legally?

Absolutely it is. There is two centuries of precedence marking copyrighted works as property. It's literally called intellectual property. The courts have only made clarification that intellectual property doesn't violate physical property theft laws (denying ownership), but instead intellectual property theft laws (denying compensation).

Re: Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement

#397

Post by gaganyaan »

23B1 wrote: post #386
gaganyaan wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same way Disney borrowed heavily from the public domain only to shut the door after themselves and lock it up for decades. We as a people benefit from not having gatekeepers lock up our cultural heritage in the name of fetishing money. We are nearing a point where copyright will be ignored and the gatekeepers left fuming and unable to extract rent anymore.

Trying to see the deleterious social effects of not having free access to Disney IP. Not Gish-galloping you, I just don't think of Disney IP as having high social utility in the grand scheme of things. I assume you'd have a better case with IP on medicines for example, but I can also see the benefits of, say, Pharma companies being able to turn some profit in order to develop other socially useful therapies...

> not having free access to Disney IP

You've got this wrong. Rephrase it like this:

> allowing Disney to enforce artificial scarcity with threats of state-enforced violence

You might not like Disney stuff, but it's absurd that Winnie the Pooh for example just partially entered the public domain. Tigger is still locked up in a greed vault. You being dismissive of the cultural value is a cold comfort to the daycare that got sued over a Winnie the Pooh mural.

Re: Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement

#398

Post by kccqzy »

pessimizer wrote: post #239
kccqzy wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that GP has no reason to believe Google, like Meta, also used copyrighted materials for training its AI. Why did Sarah Silverman sue OpenAI and Meta but not Google?

I didn't accuse Google of using copyrighted materials for training its AI. I accused Google of existing under a different set of laws than mere citizens. As an example, the mass usage of copyrighted materials to build Youtube.

It didn't.

YouTube respects creators' copyright in the videos and pays them.

Re: Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement

#399

Post by TheGigaChad »

listenallyall wrote: post #317
DennisP wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe we could figure out a new economic model, instead of blindly sticking with one based on the limitations of the pre-digital age.

How about you go figure out this new economic model, and come back when it's ready. Until then, the existing model will persist, thank you

[dead]

Re: Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement

#400

Post by amf12 »

Zambyte wrote: post #395
698969 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then most people stop writing books because they can't get paid for their time/effort and ~every child will be stuck with outdated knowledge within a decade.

Copyright is much newer than books.

So is internet and rapid copy-sharing of books.

I personally feel our copyright laws are too rigid, but that doesn't mean copyright shouldn't exist.

After x years, any book should be free to read, after y years, it should be free to be incorporated into AI models, after z years it should be in the public domain.

Post reply on HN