There's a major risk to being the market leader in a new, controversial technology. Look what happened to Juul
Highly additive nicotine formulations targeted at teens is not exactly “new technology”.
[deleted]
OpenAI may not use lyrics without license, German court rules
181–190 of 256 posts
Re: OpenAI may not use lyrics without license, German court rules
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're using the phrase "actually legal" when the ruling in fact meant it wasn't piracy after the change. Training on the shredded books was not piracy. Training on the books they downloaded was piracy. That is where the damages come from. Nothing in the ruling says it is legal to start outputting and selling content based off the results of that training process.
I think your first paragraph is entirely congruent with my first two paragraphs. Your second paragraph is not what I'm discussing right now, and was not ruled on in the case you're referring to. I fully expect that, generally speaking, infringement will be on the users of the AI, rather than the models themselves, when it all gets sorted out.
I'm in agreement that it will be targeted at the users of AI as well. Once that prevails legally someone will try litigating against the users and the AI corporations as a common group.
Re: OpenAI may not use lyrics without license, German court rules
#183Copyright law continues to stifle innovation. The DMCA needs to be abolished, and we need to entirely rethink our modern economic system with respect to creative industries (including software development). The cat is not going back in the bag.
We are sitting on the precipice of the greatest technological advancement in history, and rent-seeking industry titans have convinced us that we must stop this unstoppable technological advancement in order to protect the livelihood of artists who already receive cents on the dollar for their efforts.
Doesn't that sound familiar? This is what they have done time and again, and each time they have lost, leading to a huge loss of potential revenue for creatives as people make use of technological breakthroughs.
Then when companies like Netflix finally get everyone on board with streaming and paying for content with modern conveniences, industry titans step back in to demand larger slices of the pie, until the entire system is ruined and people return to piracy and consumption of older media. Don't even get me started on Spotify.
The technological benefit of modern machine learning models is just too large to ignore. These are becoming important tools, which put power back in the hands of the people, of the consumer. A lot of the grassroots anti-AI movements we see in the creative space can be traced back to corporate propaganda or financial backing. A lot of these people really think they're doing what's best for artists. But I just see Blockbuster all over again. We should make an effort not to be on the wrong side of history.
Re: OpenAI may not use lyrics without license, German court rules
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re willing to eliminate the entire concept of intellectual property for a possibility something might be a technological advancement? If creators are the reason you believe this advancement can be achieved, are you willing to provide them the majority of the profits?
That's an absolutely good tradeoff. There's no longer any need for copyright. Patents should go next. Only trademarks can stay.
> There's no longer any need for copyright
So you assign zero value to the process of creation?
Zero value to the process of production?
So people who write and produce books, shows and films should all do what? Give up their craft?
Re: OpenAI may not use lyrics without license, German court rules
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know nuance takes the fun out of most online discussions, but there's a qualitative difference between a bunch of college kids downloading mp3's on a torrent site and a $500 billion company who's goal among other things is to become the primary access point to all things digital.
Should young adults be allowed to violate copyright and no one else? The damages caused seem far worse than an LLM being able to reproduce song lyrics. Is it simply "we like college kids" and "we hate OpenAI"? that dictates this? I'm ready, hit me with the nuance.
What damages? You can learn lyrics by listening the song.
Re: OpenAI may not use lyrics without license, German court rules
#186The 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?
This is a tough one for the HN crowd. It's like that man not sure which button to push meme. 1) RIAA is evil for enforcing copyrights on lyrics? 2) OpenAI is evil for training on lyrics?
3) Some types of data are more ethical to train on than others.
Training on Wikipedia? Cool! Training on pirated copies of books? Not cool! Training on lyrics? IMO that's on the "cool" side of the line, because the "product" is not the words, it's the composition and mastered song.
Re: OpenAI may not use lyrics without license, German court rules
#187I found this bit very revealing: > Since the output would only be generated as a result of user inputs known as prompts, it was not the defendants, but the respective user who would be liable for it, OpenAI had argued. Another glimpse into the "mind" of a tech corporation allowing itself full freedom to profit from the vast body of human work available online, while explicitly declining any societal responsibility at…
[deleted]
Re: OpenAI may not use lyrics without license, German court rules
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
All AI companies know they're breaking the law. They all have prompts effectively saying "Don't show that we broke the law!". That we continue to have tech companies consistently breaking the law and nothing happens is an indictment of our current economy.
Training on copyright is not illegal. Even in the lawsuit against anthropic it was found to be fair use. Pirating material is a violation of copyright, which some labs have done, but that has nothing to do with training AI and everything to do with piracy.
> Training on copyright is not illegal.
The court decision this thread is about holds that it is, on the grounds that the training data was copied to the LLM's memory.
Re: OpenAI may not use lyrics without license, German court rules
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
The content industries should have been the ones to invent LLMs, but their head is so stuck in the past and in regressive thinking about how they protect their revenue streams that they're incapable of innovating. Publishing houses should have been the ones to have researchers looking into how to computationally leverage their enormous corpus of data. But instead, they put zero dollars into actual research and develo…
That's always been the case, eg. how they were latecomers to streaming.
Streaming had to compete with digital music piracy. As a result, Spotify is impossibly cheap compared to buying individual albums or singles in the past. So musicians hardly receive any money from recorded music anymore. Nowadays they basically have only concerts left as a means to earn money.
Re: OpenAI may not use lyrics without license, German court rules
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re willing to eliminate the entire concept of intellectual property for a possibility something might be a technological advancement? If creators are the reason you believe this advancement can be achieved, are you willing to provide them the majority of the profits?
That's an absolutely good tradeoff. There's no longer any need for copyright. Patents should go next. Only trademarks can stay.
Bullshit. Read up and understand the history of these things and their benefits to society. There is a reason they were created in the first place. Over a very long time. With lots of thoughts into the tradeoff/benefits to society. That Disney fucked with it does not make the original tradeoff not a benefit to society.