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

881–890 of 921 posts

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

#881

Post by Vicinity9635 »

ang_cire wrote: post #874
blehn wrote: post #852

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know what the value of the art will be before it's created? Guns N' Roses is a top 40 artist on Spotify nearly 35 years after producing an album. Should they not have been paid after 1991? If you argue that they were a popular band and therefore should have been paid accordingly up front, well what about their debut record, which sold 30 million copies? How would you predict that value before its creation…

You should be paid the accurate value of the labor . The pay should not scale more when no additional labor takes place. This is how art worked for millenia; someone commissions a chapel roof painting, someone commissions a concerto, someone commissions a statue, someone buys a chair, etc. Artists still do this today, and there is no issue determining value beforehand. Artists list their commission prices, or their h…

Exactly. Somehow this idea that you keep getting paid for literally the same thing over and over again for work you did once is the absurdity. And ridiculously greedy.

It seems to have been invented by laywers, for lawyers. Nobody else really benefits as much as they do. The whole entirety of society vs. a single profession of dubious morality.

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

#882

Post by blehn »

ang_cire wrote: post #874
blehn wrote: post #852

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know what the value of the art will be before it's created? Guns N' Roses is a top 40 artist on Spotify nearly 35 years after producing an album. Should they not have been paid after 1991? If you argue that they were a popular band and therefore should have been paid accordingly up front, well what about their debut record, which sold 30 million copies? How would you predict that value before its creation…

You should be paid the accurate value of the labor . The pay should not scale more when no additional labor takes place. This is how art worked for millenia; someone commissions a chapel roof painting, someone commissions a concerto, someone commissions a statue, someone buys a chair, etc. Artists still do this today, and there is no issue determining value beforehand. Artists list their commission prices, or their h…

You didn't answer my questions at all.

But ok so I'm a young musician. Nobody's heard of me and nobody wants to commission a concert or album. What do I do? Quit?

@Vicinity9635 It's not just lawyer greed, it creates economic fairness by preventing others from profiting from your creative work.

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

#883

Post by vel0city »

phpisthebest wrote: post #526
gnz11 wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright doesn’t exist solely for the “promotion of useful sciences”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

Citing Wikipedia you already failed.. That is a General Article about Copyright world wide, I Specifically stated US Copyright, which is Authorized by Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution[1], implicitly for the promotion of the useful sciences. That is where congress derives its power to pass copyright laws, and to enforce copyright on the people of the United States. No other purpose is a…

Missed the edit window, but thinking about this more:

> Keeping in mind commercial success of a work, author or company is not why copyright exists.

Lets take a look at the clause again:

> To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

Lets go ahead and skip over the fact you're consistently ignoring "useful arts" part as well and keep going.

What exclusive rights do you think they're talking about here? Do you really think they didn't mean the economic rights related to their writings and discoveries? How do you imagine this would "promote" the sciences if not by allowing the creators to share their works and ideas while still retaining economic benefits of their labor?

Reading between the lines, the whole point of IP is to help protect the potential commercial success of sharing your ideas. It doesn't guarantee the idea will actually be a commercial success, but it does give them the exclusive right to the commercial success for a limited time.

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

#884

Post by mawise »

graeme wrote: post #625
modeless wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To keep things simple, let's say I never regurgitate chunks of verbatim NYT articles, maybe quite short snippets. You just described Google. When you think about it, it's surprising that Google is legal. However, it is well established that what Google does is perfectly legal. Remember that internally Google keeps and uses complete verbatim copies of every web page they index. Yes, Google offers a link to the sourc…

Any publisher can opt out of google. Publisher also have substantial control over titles and snippets shown in google, whether an article appears in google news, etc Paraphrasing is also known as cloning and is often a copyright violation

> Any publisher can opt out of google.

Can they? Here's reference to a legal fight where Google scraped song lyrics from a lyrics website, and presented the lyrics verbatim directly to users (bypassing the original site and the ads that allowed that site to operate)

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/genius-law...

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

#885

Post by hn_acker »

phpisthebest wrote: post #526
gnz11 wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright doesn’t exist solely for the “promotion of useful sciences”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright

Citing Wikipedia you already failed.. That is a General Article about Copyright world wide, I Specifically stated US Copyright, which is Authorized by Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution[1], implicitly for the promotion of the useful sciences. That is where congress derives its power to pass copyright laws, and to enforce copyright on the people of the United States. No other purpose is a…

Reminder: don't take the terms "Science" and "useful Arts" to mean today's understanding of them.

> [the United States Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

...

> Some terms in the clause are used in archaic meanings, potentially confusing modern readers. For example, "useful Arts" does not refer to artistic endeavors, but rather to the work of artisans, people skilled in a manufacturing craft; "Sciences" refers not only to fields of modern scientific inquiry but rather to all knowledge.

"Science" refers to knowledge, and conveying that knowledge entails creative expression. Copyright covers expression of knowledge; facts and ideas themselves are not copyrightable. "useful Arts" refers to inventions. Patents cover useful inventions and novel implementations of practical ideas, not creative expression and not unimplemented ideas. (Which is one reason most software patents shouldn't have been granted.) Congress's authority to make copyright law and patent law is conditional on promoting the spread and advancement of knowledge, creativity, and inventions in the long term. The means of achieving that end is short-term restrictions on how people can use others' creative works and useful inventions.

But copyright does not prohibit mere usage of someone else's creative works [2]:

> To win a claim of copyright infringement in civil or criminal court, a plaintiff must show he or she owns a valid copyright, the defendant actually copied the work, and the level of copying amounts to misappropriation.

If the output of an AI model is not similar to any creative work in the training set, then the output cannot infringe on copyright. And even where the training set contains illegally obtained materials, the act of illegally obtaining those materials has nothing to do with including legally obtained materials in the training set.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity#Substan...

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

#886

Post by mrdatawolf »

blehn wrote: post #882
ang_cire wrote: post #874

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should be paid the accurate value of the labor . The pay should not scale more when no additional labor takes place. This is how art worked for millenia; someone commissions a chapel roof painting, someone commissions a concerto, someone commissions a statue, someone buys a chair, etc. Artists still do this today, and there is no issue determining value beforehand. Artists list their commission prices, or their h…

You didn't answer my questions at all. But ok so I'm a young musician. Nobody's heard of me and nobody wants to commission a concert or album. What do I do? Quit? @Vicinity9635 It's not just lawyer greed, it creates economic fairness by preventing others from profiting from your creative work.

You do other things to make money and continue to make art for it's own sake. If you get to the point that others want your art you get commissions. Just like most artists in the current system.

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

#887

Post by blehn »

mrdatawolf wrote: post #886
blehn wrote: post #882

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't answer my questions at all. But ok so I'm a young musician. Nobody's heard of me and nobody wants to commission a concert or album. What do I do? Quit? @Vicinity9635 It's not just lawyer greed, it creates economic fairness by preventing others from profiting from your creative work.

You do other things to make money and continue to make art for it's own sake. If you get to the point that others want your art you get commissions. Just like most artists in the current system.

Alright, so then you're NOT going to pay artists for their labor?

In the current system, artists might work for many years on a single work, or work many years perfecting their craft before anyone wants to pay for their work. Copyright gives them a way to earn money in the future that compensates them for the work they did in the past. It incentivizes creativity. Don't get me wrong, I don't think copyright is perfect, but you really ought to think more about the system you're proposing, because it's not making much sense.

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

#888

Post by riversflow »

ben_w wrote: post #866
riversflow wrote: post #815

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recon bio-printing is now where home computing was in the Apple 1 era How do you recon that, Apple 1 was Turing complete. We haven't printed life, that would be a tremendous accomplishment. I think we're closer to Edison inventing a lightbulb as a step to computers being possible. Printing a conscious thing, at all, would be like the transistor. An Apple 1 analogue wouldn't be likely because of the terrible ethics…

> We haven't printed life, that would be a tremendous accomplishment. Sure we have, and in multiple different senses. The ones which matters here are cell culture, which is nowhere near the fanciest bar that's been surpassed in this field, and tissue culture which is somewhat harder but the reason why I recon it's at the Apple 1 level is that a small number of experimentalists are messing around with it using expensi…

> Sure we have, and in multiple different senses.

No. That isn't printing life, that is taking already living cells, priming and transforming them into something useful. Regardless, I'd count it if we could make an entire living organism this way, but we cant. Creating a working organ is no doubt amazing, and proof that this technology is worth pursuing, but it isn't "printing life" any more than producing life saving drugs is.

In your example you are talking about being able to bioprint a person(they have to be a person to have that right) to squat a property. Bio printing an organ isn't an example of that, it's not even close. Saying that we are anywhere near being able to print a human to squat a property is pretty ridiculous.

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

#889

Post by chucke1992 »

dchichkov wrote: post #842
caesil wrote: post #762

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>if a work is purely derivative of a source work This is the weakest part of the case(s) against OpenAI. "Derivative work" is a legal term of art meaning a direct adaptation, like writing a screenplay of a book or translating a book into another language. NYT has a stronger case than Sarah Silverman here because they can show actual 'memorized' text rather than just summarization, but given that those memorizations a…

"Transformative" seems to fit a lot more that "Derivative". On the other hand, it's understandable why NYT is worried. OpenAI itself says that occupations like: Writers and Authors, Web and Digital Interface Designers, News Analysts, Reporters, and Journalists, Proofreaders and Copy Markers are "90-100% exposed" to what OpenAI is building.

I don't buy into all these "dangers". The advent of cars did not decrease the amount of drivers and introduced various new jobs, that were not available for a lot of people. And the rise of computers, did not make the workforce smaller but instead opened many more opportunities for a lot of people.

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

#890

Post by chucke1992 »

paledot wrote: post #846
dchichkov wrote: post #842

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Transformative" seems to fit a lot more that "Derivative". On the other hand, it's understandable why NYT is worried. OpenAI itself says that occupations like: Writers and Authors, Web and Digital Interface Designers, News Analysts, Reporters, and Journalists, Proofreaders and Copy Markers are "90-100% exposed" to what OpenAI is building.

We should all be worried about that. If journalism is replaced with AI, truth is replaced with the AI hallucination du jour.

Most of the modern news are hallucinations and post-truths.
Post reply on HN