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

571–580 of 599 posts

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

#571

Post by nimih »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #513
temp51723 wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If everyone is allowed to steal books Nothing was stolen- just copied.

As a book author, I can say that, "Yes, something was stolen. My opportunity to earn a living taking care of readers." Now you may believe the incredibly self-serving baloney from big companies like Google. You may want to pretend that infringement isn't theft. To you, I hope that some homeless kid breaks into your home, starts squatting, and says that, "Hey, this isn't theft. Nothing has been destroyed."

As a book author, what's your feeling on libraries, out of curiosity?

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

#572

Post by gs17 »

jdm2212 wrote: post #532
gs17 wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really the same, you could have a copy of my credit card, but you using it to make purchases would become an issue. Regardless, that quickly steps out of the domain of intellectual property.

If I use your copied credit card to buy software, all that happens is (a) some bits get written to my computer's hard disk and (b) some bits get written to a Visa or Mastercard server's hard disk. Why would you get upset about that? EDIT: ok, it's fun playing obtuse, but more seriously it is also very obtuse to pretend that intellectual property is not property. I think you have to be pretty stupid to not understand…

It is not playing obtuse to think "I also have a copy of an ebook" is different from "I have literally stolen your property".

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

#573

Post by mywittyname »

holmesworcester wrote: post #262
pessimizer wrote: post #86

> The complaint lays out in steps why the plaintiffs believe the datasets have illicit origins — in a Meta paper detailing LLaMA, the company points to sources for its training datasets, one of which is called ThePile, which was assembled by a company called EleutherAI. ThePile, the complaint points out, was described in an EleutherAI paper as being put together from “a copy of the contents of the Bibliotik private t…

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…

I'm a fan of copyrights. While I think that the USA's implementation of copyrights has a few glaring flaws (namely, the duration of copyright is far too long). I firmly believe that the elimination, or effective elimination of copyrights is massively detrimental to our culture.

A fair middle ground would be for copyrights to last for 20 or so years. That's plenty of time to profit from a work while allowing people to preserve and distribute older works.

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

#574

Post by sdfghswe »

throw10920 wrote: post #525
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…

> Let's take a second to remember This is emotionally manipulative speech that provides no value to HN and only serves the purpose of bypassing peoples' logical reasoning circuits. > ~every child doesn't have access to ~every book ever written More manipulation - "think of the children!" Copyright exists because people who produce content with low distribution costs (e.g. books) need some protection for their work be…

[flagged]

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

#575

Post by danans »

marcus0x62 wrote: post #432
yencabulator wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replace "answer questions about contract law, based solely on what I learned from the book" with "generate cartoon images, based solely on what ML learned from Disney IP" and see how badly that will go.

Replace it with any subject. The point stands - it isn't at all clear how the courts will treat this. Take your example: I'm a self-taught artist, and I learned everything I know about art by studying cartoons made by Disney. Maybe I paid for these cartoons, maybe I didn't. I then make a website where I draw my own cartoons, which, since I've never seen any other art, look a lot like Disney's. Unless I'm straight-up…

> I then make a website where I draw my own cartoons, which, since I've never seen any other art, look a lot like Disney's. Unless I'm straight-up copying their characters, they would have no claim against me.

The law pertains ultimately to the actions of humans. We don't allow non-human animals or machines access to legal system. Even in the specious only-Disney-inspired-artist scenario presented (courts don't use unrealistic hypotheticals like that), there would have to be consideration given to the fact that you somehow never got any access to other art, so you were severely disadvantaged.

But most of all, you the disadvantaged Disneyesque-drawing artist not a generative AI, so you should have more legal latitude to create works inspired than others work than the person who creates the LLM has.

The LLM creator instead has just created a very good style plagiarism machine, one that lacks the ability to be inspired, much less attribute the styles that it plagiarizes.

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

#576

Post by dang »

DowsingSpoon wrote: post #194
JamesBarney wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not was he's saying at all. He's saying you can train an AI on copyrighted material just like people can learn from copyrighted material. If you acquire the material illegally that a separate issue that training AI doesn't give you any protection against.

>you can train an AI on copyrighted material just like people can learn from copyrighted material. No amount of whining and hand wringing from engineers will ever make this true. This is for the courts to decide. A reasonable interpretation, in my eyes, is that the training process is a black box which takes in copyrighted works and produces a training model. The training model is a derivative work of the inputs. It…

> No amount of whining and hand wringing from engineers will ever make this true

Please omit flamebait and swipes, as the site guidelines ask: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Your comment would have been fine without that bit.

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

#577

Post by baobabKoodaa »

bryans wrote: post #390
baobabKoodaa wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is illegal where? Certainly not over here in Finland.

You say that very confidently, but you are very wrong. If you download music from a source that does not have a license to distribute that music, then they are violating the copyright and you are now in possession of stolen property. Finland uses different terminology for Fair Use, but the citations amount to the same as US policy and only apply if you obtained the work by legal means. Chapter 28: Theft https://www.f…

Huh, looks like you are partially correct. Apparently the law was changed in 2015. Before 2015 it was legal to download copies of music from the internet.

You are wrong regarding the copy of music being considered "stolen property" and your citation "Chapter 28: Theft" does not support your position. It lists many different types of theft NONE of the types of "theft" included there are in any way related to piracy or music.

You are right regarding that obtaining a copy of a song is apparently illegal.

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

#578

Post by dang »

gaganyaan wrote: post #265
DowsingSpoon wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>you can train an AI on copyrighted material just like people can learn from copyrighted material. No amount of whining and hand wringing from engineers will ever make this true. This is for the courts to decide. A reasonable interpretation, in my eyes, is that the training process is a black box which takes in copyrighted works and produces a training model. The training model is a derivative work of the inputs. It…

[flagged]

Personal attacks aren't allowed here, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

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

#579

Post by polski-g »

tzs wrote: post #244
magoghm wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is distribution of copyrighted material without permission of the author that is illegal, when you download you're not distributing so it isn't illegal (unless you're using something like BitTorrent that also distributes it while you're downloading it).

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

As far as the downloader is aware, the uploader has rights to do those things.

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

#580

Post by Aerroon »

throw10920 wrote: post #537
mensetmanusman wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth challenging the length of copyright. 20 years seems good enough for high tech R&D, probably good for books as well.

Sure! Yes! I agree! 100 years is way too long. 20 years is much more reasonable. But the comment that I was responding to (and many others in this thread) are advocating for the complete removal of copyright, and that's what I'm responding to.

Just to add: copyright is *not 100 years. It's 'the entire life of the author plus 70 years'.

If I make a YouTube video and live another 60 years, then people copying that video would still be committing copyright infringement in the year 2150.

That's just insane.

Post reply on HN