111–120 of 256 posts
They'll easily be paid off once all legal avenues are exhausted for OpenAI. Though they'll of course keep fighting in court in the hopes of some more favorable negotiating position.
Simon Willison had an analysis of Claude's system prompt back in May. One of the things that stood out was the effort they put in to avoiding copyright infringement: https://simonwillison.net/2025/May/25/claude-4-system-prompt... Everyone knows that these LLMs were trained on copyrighted material, and as a next-token prediction model, LLMs are strongly inclined to reproduce text they were trained on.
The obsession with protecting access to lyrics is one of the strangest long-running legal battles to me. I will skip tracks on Spotify sometimes specifically because there are no lyrics available. Easy access to lyrics is practically an advertisement for the music. Why do record companies not want lyrics freely available? In most cases, it means they aren't available at all. How is that a good business decision?
The obsession with protecting access to lyrics is one of the strangest long-running legal battles to me. I will skip tracks on Spotify sometimes specifically because there are no lyrics available. Easy access to lyrics is practically an advertisement for the music. Why do record companies not want lyrics freely available? In most cases, it means they aren't available at all. How is that a good business decision?
Plus, from TFA,
"GEMA hoped discussions could now take place with OpenAI on how copyright holders can be remunerated."
Getting something back is better than nothing
While I partially understand (but not support) the hate against AI due to possible plagiarism and "low effort generation" of works, think about the whole process: If model providers will be liable for generating output, that resembles lyrics or very short texts that fall under copyright laws, they will just change their business model. E.g. why offering lame chat agents as a service, when you can keep the value gener…
The fact they don't already do that, sounds to me like the things produced by AI are not worth the investment. Especially since the output is not copyrightable, right? If there was a lot of gold to find they wouldn't sell the shovels.
There is a reason that Cisco doesn't offer websites, and you are probably actively ignoring whatever websites your ISP has. ASML isn't making chips, and TSMC isn't making chip designs
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You had originally said the user should be liable instead of OpenAI being liable. > However, the lyrics are shown because the user requested them, shouldn't be the user be liable instead? I would imagine the sociological rationale for allowing sex work would not map to a multi-billion-dollar company. And to add, the social network example doesn't map because the user is producing the content and sharing it with the n…
No, the edited wording still conveys the same meaning. My edit was to fix another grammar typo. The social networks are distributing such content AND benefiting from selling ads on them. Adding ads on top is a derivative work. Personally I'm on the side of penalizing the side that provides the input, not the output: - OpenAI training on copyrighted works. - Users requesting custom works based on copyrighted IP That i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps; I didn't read the court ruling. But I'd be surprised if that was generally the case. It's easy to see why ChatGPT 1:1 reproducing a song's lyrics would be a copyright issue. But creating a derivative work based on the song? What if I made a website that counts the number of alliterations in certain songs' lyrics? Would that be copyright infringement, because my algorithm uses the original lyrics to derive it…
> But creating a derivative work based on the song? 1. it wouldn't matter as derivative work still needs the original license 2. expect if it's not derivative but just inspired, and the court case was about it being pretty much _the same work_ OpenAIs defense also wasn't that it's derived or inspired but, to quote > Since the output would only be generated as a result of user inputs known as prompts, it was not the d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They scan for commercial work already. Isn’t the law about training, not output?
Perhaps; I didn't read the court ruling. But I'd be surprised if that was generally the case. It's easy to see why ChatGPT 1:1 reproducing a song's lyrics would be a copyright issue. But creating a derivative work based on the song? What if I made a website that counts the number of alliterations in certain songs' lyrics? Would that be copyright infringement, because my algorithm uses the original lyrics to derive it…
You need a license to create derivative works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are 80 million Germans. If you where OpenAI, or it's shareholders, would you leave that market open for a competitor? No, you'd make a version of your product without the lyrics. More EU countries are going to follow and reach the same conclusion, especially now that Germany has set a legal precedence. Should OpenAI just pull out of a market with 500 million people and leave it to Claude, Perplexity or someone…
> More EU countries are going to follow and reach the same conclusion, especially now that Germany has set a legal precedence. That's not how laws and regulations work in European or even EU countries. Courts/the legal system in Germany can not set legal precedents for other countries, and countries don't use legal precedents from other countries, as they obviously have different laws. It could be cited as an authori…
Do you have some sort of different understanding of copyright law where it's legal to commercially use lyrics (verbatim, mind you) without a license?