Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI may not use lyrics without license, German court rules

reuters.com

231–240 of 256 posts

Re: OpenAI may not use lyrics without license, German court rules

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very true. Just the other day, another “copyright is bad” post on the front page. Today its copyright is good because otherwise people might get some use of material in LLMs. Considering this is hacker news, it seems to be such an odd dichotomy. Sometimes it feels like anti-hacker news. The halcyon days of 2010 after long gone. Now we need to apparently be angry at all tech. LLMs are amazing and I wish they could tra…

> Very true. Just the other day, another “copyright is bad” post on the front page. Today its copyright is good because otherwise people might get some use of material in LLMs. > > Considering this is hacker news, it seems to be such an odd dichotomy. Sometimes it feels like anti-hacker news. The halcyon days of 2010 after long gone. Now we need to apparently be angry at all tech. > > LLMs are amazing and I wish they…

Does that mean you would support open LLM model training on copyrighted data?

Re: OpenAI may not use lyrics without license, German court rules

#232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a point that I don't see discussed enough. I think anthropic decided to purchase books in bulk, tear them apart to scan them, and then destroy those copies. And that's the only source of copyrighted material I've ever heard of that is actually legal to use for training LLMs. Most LLMs were trained on vast troves of pirated copyrighted material. Folks point this out, but they don't ever talk about what the alt…

> Folks point this out, but they don't ever talk about what the alternative was. That LLMs would be as expensively priced as they really are on society and energy costs? A lot of things are possible, whether they are economically feasible is determined by giving them a price. When that price doesn't reflect the real costs, society starts to wast work on weird things, like building large AI centers, because of a finan…

Innovation is absolutely an end goal, at least in terms of our legal framework. The primary impetus for copyright and patent law is is innovation: to credit those that innovate their due, and I do think this stems from our society seeing innovation as an end goal. But the intent of the system is always different than its actual effect, and I'm fairly passionate about examining the shear.

I run my AI models locally, paying for the hardware and electricity myself, precisely to ensure the unit economics of the majority of my usage are something I can personallly support. I do use hosted models regularly, though not often these days, which is why I say "the majority of my usage".

In terms of the concerns you express, I'm simply not worried. Time will sort it out naturally.

Re: OpenAI may not use lyrics without license, German court rules

#233

Earlier 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…

> The content industries should have been the ones to invent LLMs While exclusively-controlled LLMs would be mildly useful to them, the technology existing is dangerous to them, and they already have a surplus supply of content at low cost that they monetize by controlling discovery, gatekeeping, and promotion, so I don't think it makes sense for them to put energy into LLMs even if they had the technical acumen to r…

You have to get ahead of the disruption that will destroy you. At least, if you care about longevity of your company. I realize this isn't always the case.

Re: OpenAI may not use lyrics without license, German court rules

#234
post #107

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?

They probably fear a domino effect if they let go of this. And so they defend it vehemently to avoid setting a precedent. Think about compositions, samples, performance rights, and so on. There is a lot more at stake.

Hot take: it’s all bullshit.

Like software patents - when you’re not a normie.

Re: OpenAI may not use lyrics without license, German court rules

#235
post #107

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?

They probably fear a domino effect if they let go of this. And so they defend it vehemently to avoid setting a precedent. Think about compositions, samples, performance rights, and so on. There is a lot more at stake.

What's the benefit of protecting monetary IP rights to art?

We'll only get the art that artists really wanted to make? Great!

Re: OpenAI may not use lyrics without license, German court rules

#236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Very true. Just the other day, another “copyright is bad” post on the front page. Today its copyright is good because otherwise people might get some use of material in LLMs. > > Considering this is hacker news, it seems to be such an odd dichotomy. Sometimes it feels like anti-hacker news. The halcyon days of 2010 after long gone. Now we need to apparently be angry at all tech. > > LLMs are amazing and I wish they…

Does that mean you would support open LLM model training on copyrighted data?

I think that opens several other cans of worms, but in principle I would support a solution that allows using copyrighted materials if it is for the common good (I.e the results are released fully open, means not just weights but everything else).

As a side note i am definitely not strong into IP rights, but I can see the benefits of copyright much more clearly than patents.

Re: OpenAI may not use lyrics without license, German court rules

#237
post #158

I 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…

This is largely how it works for nearly all coprightable work. I can draw Mickey Mouse but legally I'm not doing anything wrong until I try to sell it. It certainly doesn't put Crayola or Adobe at legal risk for me to do so.

But you are not the one drawing Mickey Mouse in this scenario, are you? You are instructing the AI company to draw something or more close to the original post you are prompting to generate lyrics for song X.

Your prompt may be asking something for illegal (i.e. reproducing the lyrics), but the one reproducing the lyrics is the AI company, not you yourself.

In your example you are asking Adobe to draw Mickey Mouse and Adobe happily draws a perfect rendition of Mickey Mouse for you and you have to pay Adobe for that image.

Re: OpenAI may not use lyrics without license, German court rules

#238
post #218

A key takeaway from this ruling is that "the systems contain copies of the original works." Does this mean that offering any open-weight model capable of reproducing copyrighted text snippets or lyrics will be prohibited? That would be a big setback for AI development in the EU.

That's what the lawsuit of the New York Times is about - OpenAI reproducing complete texts of NYT articles without paying for the reproduction of said articles. This is not an EU issue, but a general unsolved legal grey zone for the whole AI market.

Re: OpenAI may not use lyrics without license, German court rules

#239
post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> turn everything worse? A media generation company that is forced to publish uncopyrightable works, because it cannot make the usage to these media generators public, since that would violate copyright - that does sound like a big win for everyone but that company. How is that worse?

„Record companies“ without artists, but exclusive access to automated creation, selection and a working distribution.

Uncopyrightable works result in 0 royalties. How many record companies do you know that are sustainable without royalties?

Re: OpenAI may not use lyrics without license, German court rules

#240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

That seems like a really broad interpretation of "technically memorization" that could have unintended side effects (like say banning equations that could be used to generate specific lyrics), but I suppose some countries consider loading into RAM a copy already. I guess we're already at absurdity

It _really_ isn't absurd.

The law doesn't care what technical trickery you use to encode/compress copyrighted material. If you take data and then create a equation which contains it based on it it which can reproduce the data trivially then yes, IMHO obviously, this form of embedding copyrighted data still is embedding copyrighted data.

Think about it if that weren't the case I could just transform a video into an equation system and then distribute the latest movies, books, whatever to everyone without permission and without violating copy right even through de-facto I'm doing exactly what copy right law is supposed to prevent... (1)

Just because you come up with a clever technical trick to encode copyrighted content doesn't mean you can launder/circumvent copyright law, or any law at that. Law mostly doesn't care about technical tricks but the outcomes.

Maybe even more importantly LLMs under hood the are basically at the core compression systems where by not giving them enough entropy to store information you force to generalize and with that happen to create a illusion of sentience.

E.g. what is the simplest case of training a transformer? You put in data to create the transformer state (which has much smaller entropy) and then output it from that state and then you find a "transformation" where this works as well as possible for a huge amount of different data. That is a compression algorithm!!! And sure in reality it's more complex you don't train to compress a specific input but more like a dictionary of "expected" input->output mappings where the output parts need to be fully embedded i.e. memorized in the algorithm in some form.

LLMs are basically obscure multi layered hyper dimensional lossy compression systems which compress a simple input->output mapping (i.e. database) defined by all entries in it's training data. A compressed mapping Which due to forcing a limited entropy needs to do compression through generalization....

And since when is compression allowing you to avoid copyright??

So if you want it to be handled differently by law because it's isn't used as a compressed database you have to special case it in law.

But it is used as a compressed database, in that case e.g. it was used to look up lyrics based on some clues. That's basically a lookup in a lossy compressed obscure database system no matter how you would normally think about LLMs.

(1): And in case it's not clear this doesn't mean every RNG is a violation because under some unknown seed it probably would reproduce copyrighted content. Because the RNG wasn't written "based on" the copy righted content.

Post reply on HN