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

NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 921 posts

Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

#321

Post by mlindner »

munchinator wrote: post #180

It's interesting to me the ambiguous attitude people have to reproducing news content. Whenever there is a story from NYT on HN (or any other large media outlet), the top comment is almost always a link to an archived version which reproduces the text verbatim. And this seems to be tolerated as the norm. And yet, whenever there is a submission about a book, a TV show, a movie, a video game, an album, a comic book, or…

At least in the US, copyright violation is a civil thing, it's handled by lawsuits. If the copyright violation is of such a small level that it's not worth the copyright owner to do anything about it then nothing's done. In this case it's worth a massive amount of money.

Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

#322

Post by davedx »

munchinator wrote: post #180

It's interesting to me the ambiguous attitude people have to reproducing news content. Whenever there is a story from NYT on HN (or any other large media outlet), the top comment is almost always a link to an archived version which reproduces the text verbatim. And this seems to be tolerated as the norm. And yet, whenever there is a submission about a book, a TV show, a movie, a video game, an album, a comic book, or…

I pay for multiple streaming services because I get a decent amount of value from their content.

I do not pay for any news websites because I read very little of what they produce, and it tends to pop up more on aggregator sites like HN than me actually going to them.

I actually did have a subscription to The Telegraph for a few months at one point because initially I wanted to read a full article (without cheating). But eventually I cancelled because so much of it is polemic trash.

That's my justification: I pay for things that have value to me.

Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

#323

Post by tkz1312 »

whythre wrote: post #272
lacrimacida wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it becomes a service where you make money but the source doesn’t is it still fair use?

Yeah. No one is out there suing the shit out of cliff notes because they published a summary of Catcher in the Rye.

they might if cliff notes starting copy pasting parts of the source into their articles and passing it off as original writing though :)

Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

#324

Post by ekianjo »

munchinator wrote: post #180

It's interesting to me the ambiguous attitude people have to reproducing news content. Whenever there is a story from NYT on HN (or any other large media outlet), the top comment is almost always a link to an archived version which reproduces the text verbatim. And this seems to be tolerated as the norm. And yet, whenever there is a submission about a book, a TV show, a movie, a video game, an album, a comic book, or…

> , a movie, a video game, an album, a comic book, or any other form of IP, it is in fact very much _not_ the norm for the top-rated comment to be a Pirate Bay link.

Probably because most print media is garbage and nobody in their right mind would actually pay to read them

Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

#325

Post by fodkodrasz »

bongripper wrote: post #299
fodkodrasz wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government (thus the people, in a so called sharing of public burden)! For example in Hungary there is an official news agency ran by the government, with (cumbersome) free access for everybody. Of course this does provide somewhat biased presentation of some facts, but on many topics it provides unbiased access to news for any citizen. This is actually pretty common in Europe, often funded by mandatory fees (for…

I agree with your general point but Hungary is probably the worst example you could have chosen from any EU country! The Orbán government is famously using it to spread propaganda and fake information in unprecedented levels. The level of control governments exert on public broadcasting networks is widely different. Since Meloni, the RAI in Italy is facing similar issues, but Hungary is still the canonic example of g…

That is a orthogonal to the discussion we were having. The topic was whether people should have free access to news, and how should it be financed, not the quality of that news.

People have free access to public roads all around the world, and the quality wildly differs in that as well. Also the quality of for-profit news services does differ wildly, you might have an opinion about that of fox news, for example, but that is also off topic in this discussion.

Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

#326

Post by tsimionescu »

aspenmayer wrote: post #226
tsimionescu wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except if you do that, you will see the number of content producers plummet quite quickly, and then you won't have any new training data to train new LLMs on.

Would it not logically follow that nothing of value would be lost, even if that were the case? From the point of view of LLMs and content creators, I would treat potential loss of future content being created like I would treat a lost sale. LLMs have value now because of training performed on content that already exists. There must be diminishing returns for certain types of content relative to others. Certain conten…

That's like saying that if a competitor can take your products from your warehouse and sell them for pennies on the dollar, your business has no value. The point is that, to some extent, OpenAI is selling access to NYT content for much cheaper than NYT, while paying exactly 0 to NYT for this content. Obviously, the NYT content costs the NYT more than 0 to produce, so they just can't compete on price with OpenAI, for their own content.

Note that I don't see any major problem if only articles that were, say, more than 5 or 10 years old were being used. I don't think the current length of copyright makes any sense. But there is a big difference from last year's archive vs today's news.

Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

#327

Post by amelius »

Yizahi wrote: post #318
amelius wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no way to get your money back if you didn't like the content. If they don't want their articles to be read for free then they should keep them out of my view. And certainly not use clickbaity headlines. Information can be copied and they should accept it, or change their business/distribution model.

So if I went to a cinema and didn't like the movie, I should be entitled for a return, right? Or if I went into a museum and didn't like the art displayed there? If you are advocating for a free for all libertarian dystopia, well, I have some bad news for you - they never work.

> So if I went to a cinema and didn't like the movie, I should be entitled for a return, right?

Not being able to un-see a movie and get your time and money back is one side of the coin. The other side is that information can be copied.

Both sides suck for one of the parties. There's no reason why one of them gets it their way, especially if it requires a contrived legal framework while the other way would require nothing at all.

Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

#328

Post by octacat »

jalapenos wrote: post #314
munchinator wrote: post #180

It's interesting to me the ambiguous attitude people have to reproducing news content. Whenever there is a story from NYT on HN (or any other large media outlet), the top comment is almost always a link to an archived version which reproduces the text verbatim. And this seems to be tolerated as the norm. And yet, whenever there is a submission about a book, a TV show, a movie, a video game, an album, a comic book, or…

If ChatGPT is based on neural networks, with no actual save-and-replicate facsimile behaviour, it no more "copies" original work than I do when I tell you about the news article I read today. I'd say the only real reason the Piratebay links thing you mentioned is not the norm is purely because those media sources have done a better job of striking fear into people doing that, so it's gone more underground. I.e. they'…

So, if someone applies a filter to a video/audio, it is no more "copies" of the original work (no, it is still protected). AI still could produce exact or extremely similar results of stuff it learned on.

Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

#329

Post by octacat »

munchinator wrote: post #180

It's interesting to me the ambiguous attitude people have to reproducing news content. Whenever there is a story from NYT on HN (or any other large media outlet), the top comment is almost always a link to an archived version which reproduces the text verbatim. And this seems to be tolerated as the norm. And yet, whenever there is a submission about a book, a TV show, a movie, a video game, an album, a comic book, or…

At least people do not obscure who is the original author of the content (so, if people like NYT articles - they could go and subscribe for more). Kinda "free advertising" (which still hurts the publisher in many cases, though). Same with search engines - as long as engine brings clicks - people are happy. If search engine just grabs the info and never redirects the user to the site - what is the point for the site to exist to begin with?

Re: NY Times copyright suit wants OpenAI to delete all GPT instances

#330

Post by davedx »

ekianjo wrote: post #324
munchinator wrote: post #180

It's interesting to me the ambiguous attitude people have to reproducing news content. Whenever there is a story from NYT on HN (or any other large media outlet), the top comment is almost always a link to an archived version which reproduces the text verbatim. And this seems to be tolerated as the norm. And yet, whenever there is a submission about a book, a TV show, a movie, a video game, an album, a comic book, or…

> , a movie, a video game, an album, a comic book, or any other form of IP, it is in fact very much _not_ the norm for the top-rated comment to be a Pirate Bay link. Probably because most print media is garbage and nobody in their right mind would actually pay to read them

I don't understand the downvotes - it's an extremely valid opinion. If people ask questions like that then they should be able to accept forthright answers?

(It's the same reason for me. I have tried news site subs but eventually got so tired of the polemic that I cancelled. I won't sub again).

Post reply on HN