Judge rejects most ChatGPT copyright claims from book authors • Hacker News Board

Re: Judge rejects most ChatGPT copyright claims from book authors

#121

Post by tivert » Thu, Feb 15, 2024, 6:12 AM UTC

throwaway09223 wrote: post #115

tivert wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The open question is how to handle machines that mimic the process. It's not really an open question, except for software engineers who've talked themselves into thinking of humans as computers. A machine is not a human mind, so does not benefit from the legal exceptions and rights granted to the latter.

This has nothing to do with how things operate, or whether an LLM is like a mind. It's a legal question regarding large scale compilation of data. "A machine is not a human mind, so does not benefit from the legal exceptions and rights granted to the latter." Five years ago this was true. It likely will not be true, eventually. The only question is where we are in this process.

> This has nothing to do with how things operate, or whether an LLM is like a mind.

Huh? You brought up "cognition," but now that has nothing to do with it?

> It's a legal question regarding large scale compilation of data.

The legal question of does "copyright goes away if your violation is big enough?"

>> "A machine is not a human mind, so does not benefit from the legal exceptions and rights granted to the latter."

> Five years ago this was true. It likely will not be true, eventually. The only question is where we are in this process.

Because of the meme magic of enthusiastic software engineers will end the "carbon chauvinism" of humanity forever?

Yeah, right.

Re: Judge rejects most ChatGPT copyright claims from book authors

#122

Post by throwaway09223 » Thu, Feb 15, 2024, 6:55 AM UTC

tivert wrote: post #121

throwaway09223 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has nothing to do with how things operate, or whether an LLM is like a mind. It's a legal question regarding large scale compilation of data. "A machine is not a human mind, so does not benefit from the legal exceptions and rights granted to the latter." Five years ago this was true. It likely will not be true, eventually. The only question is where we are in this process.

> This has nothing to do with how things operate, or whether an LLM is like a mind. Huh? You brought up "cognition," but now that has nothing to do with it? > It's a legal question regarding large scale compilation of data. The legal question of does "copyright goes away if your violation is big enough?" >> "A machine is not a human mind, so does not benefit from the legal exceptions and rights granted to the latter.…

I remarked on how human cognition is treated as a magical process with respect to copyright law.

This is just a legal fact. It has nothing to do with how an LLM operates internally, or whether an LLM is at all similar to a human mind in terms of internal mechanics.

> "The legal question of does "copyright goes away if your violation is big enough?"

Don't be fatuous.

> "Because of the meme magic"

No, because of the way the law works.

Re: Judge rejects most ChatGPT copyright claims from book authors

#123

Post by stale2002 » Thu, Feb 15, 2024, 8:37 AM UTC

PeterisP wrote: post #120

stale2002 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people who settled for ~$3000 each So then not a single instance of an actual judge ruling that the downloading part was civilly illegal or requires payment civilly? If no, then my point stands. Anyone can make a threat and get money out of someone. I could threaten you right now with horrible legal consequences for the completely bogus "civil crime" of being wrong on hacker news! But you giving in to me, and givin…

All the trial cases which went through the courts e.g. Sony vs Tenenbaum also were judged that the downloading part was also infringing activity, it's just that those defendants did both downloading and [offering for] distribution.

Gotcha.

So then you could have instead just said. "I agree with you completely, 100%, that there has not been a singular case in the history of the USA copyright law where a judge has ruled against someone who only did the downloading part".

I am glad after half a dozen posts I was finally able to get you to agree to this.

You could have just said that from the beginning really. I am happy that you agree with me on my main point!

Re: Judge rejects most ChatGPT copyright claims from book authors

#124

Post by brookst » Fri, Feb 16, 2024, 2:20 PM UTC

vundercind wrote: post #44

brookst wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If learning from a purchased, copyrighted work is illegal, colleges are in real trouble. Textbook publishers will be thrilled though: this book is $200 to read, but you need an additional license to learn anything from it.

Learning and then reproducing parts of a work already is illegal, depending on context. Also, “learning” here isn’t the same thing as what college students do. For one thing, you can’t copy-paste a college student’s whole brain. You can’t own and sell their brains (well, ah, you know what I mean—not the organ trade). For another… it’s simply not the same thing. It might be, we suppose, similar to some parts of how hu…

Sure, “learning and then reproducing” is just as illegal as “learning and then dumping toxic waste in a river”.

If the complaint is with the second action, as it should be, the learning part is irrelevant.

Re: Judge rejects most ChatGPT copyright claims from book authors

#125

Post by brookst » Fri, Feb 16, 2024, 2:22 PM UTC

Ferret7446 wrote: post #33

brookst wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright protects the expression of an idea, such as a series of words or chords. You’d be fine. Patents protect the implementation of an idea, so you’d be fine. There is no IP protection for the abstract idea of doing something, and that is as it should be.

Does that mean you could rewrite, say, Harry Potter from scratch without violating copyright?

Yes. There are numerous fantasy authors who make a living rewriting Lord of the Rings. Copyright protects the expression, not the ideas.

Re: Judge rejects most ChatGPT copyright claims from book authors

#126

Post by snickerbockers » Sat, Feb 17, 2024, 7:32 PM UTC

throwaway09223 wrote: post #98

snickerbockers wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is false. The LLM's entire purpose is to mimic cognition. Purpose and mechanism are not the same thing. "Similarity of output" does not make it equivalent. >I didn't suggest they need to be the same, proven or otherwise. I think you're not understanding. The point is that the function is similar. Sure, go ahead and ignore all but half a sentence and then accuse me of missing the point. >False as a matter of law…

> "Purpose and mechanism are not the same thing." No one said they were. You may want to revisit my original observation.

"The LLM's entire purpose is to mimic cognition." is your counterpoint to me saying that no peer-reviewed source has ever demonstrated a similarity between LLMs and human cognition. I'm talking about mechanism and you're talking about purpose.