Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I acknowledged that piracy is illegal in my previous post. That's not what the lawsuit is about, according to The Verge: >In the OpenAI suit, the trio offers exhibits showing that when prompted, ChatGPT will summarize their books, infringing on their copyrights.
That serves as evidence that the model has seen the material, and the only way the model could have seen the material is if it was pirated.
Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement
271–280 of 599 posts
Re: Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it different from asking to me to summarize anything? I could have bought the book, or read the Wikipedia page, or listened people talking about it, or downloaded the torrent. In all those cases my summary could be right or could be wrong. If the rights holders know that I dowloaded the torrent they could sue me. In the other cases they can't. What if it turns out that OpenAI bought a copy of every book ingest…
> What if it turns out that OpenAI bought a copy of every book ingested be ChatGPT? That still doesn't necessarily confer to them the right to use it to train a model and generate derivative works based on purchased content.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I knew absolutely nothing about contract law and was then filmed stealing a book you wrote on the subject from a book store. I then started a business where I would answer questions about contract law, based solely on what I learned from the book. Of course, my memory isn't perfect, but I don't like to admit when I'm wrong, so sometimes I just make stuff up. People line up to pay me anyway.
Now, the owner of the book store you might be able to get me arrested for petty theft. Do you think there is any possibility you, as the author, could successfully litigate a copyright claim against me? I'd argue not. Do you think you could get an injunction enjoining me from engaging in my contract law Q&A business? Again, I think that would be highly unlikely.
It isn't clear to me that any court is going to hold that LLMs are being used to create derivative works, any more than someone who reads a book, whether they paid for it or not, and then speaks or writes about a topic covered by a book they've read has done so. It is entirely possible the IP laws, as they currently exist simply do not cover what LLMs are doing. The laws certainly were not written with this kind of scenario in mind.
Re: Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement
#273Re: Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You can’t use illegally acquired materials when doing business. This vague sentence conjures images of a company building products from stolen parts, but this situation seems different. IANAL, but if I looked at a stolen painting that nobody had ever seen, and sold handwritten descriptions of the painting to whoever wanted to buy one, I'm pretty sure what I've sold is not illegal.
Piracy of content is against the law. All other analogies such as looking at paintings are not at issue here. The content was pirated and there are laws against that, whether we agree with it or not. So, if the plaintiff can prove the content was pirated, then the use of that content downstream is tainted.
Has that been tested in court?
This is quite an interesting case.
Obtaining the book in the first place[0] appears to be quite a clear case of copyright infrigement.
The question of whether a work derived from the book is infringment is pretty complex, and there's a wide range of tests that get applied to determine that.
But is it necessarily true that if you obtained the original work via copyright infringement and then created an otherwise non-infringing derived work, your derived work is nevertheless infringing due to the provenance of your copy of the original work?
Re: Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement
#275Re: Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t the burden of proof on the other side?
Not when OpenAI publicly declared they trained on pirated works. I can’t imagine “we can’t tell if this is the result of the illegal thing we did or not” is going to stand up very well, nor does it bode well for any refutation of the plaintiff’s depiction of their intent. Part of fair use consideration is commercial impact and when you steal a bunch of books to train your AI model, it’s hard to refute that the impact…
Re: Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not when OpenAI publicly declared they trained on pirated works. I can’t imagine “we can’t tell if this is the result of the illegal thing we did or not” is going to stand up very well, nor does it bode well for any refutation of the plaintiff’s depiction of their intent. Part of fair use consideration is commercial impact and when you steal a bunch of books to train your AI model, it’s hard to refute that the impact…
Please read more carefully. OpenAI never “declared they trained on pirated works.”
Re: Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I acknowledged that piracy is illegal in my previous post. That's not what the lawsuit is about, according to The Verge: >In the OpenAI suit, the trio offers exhibits showing that when prompted, ChatGPT will summarize their books, infringing on their copyrights.
That serves as evidence that the model has seen the material, and the only way the model could have seen the material is if it was pirated.
Numerous questions of law or fact common to each Class arise from Defendants’ conduct:
whether ChatGPT itself is an infringing derivative work based on Plaintiffs’ copyrighted books;
whether the text outputs of ChatGPT are infringing derivative works based on Plaintiffs’ copyrighted books;
It's not a simple case of "you used our copyrighted materials", it's "you're infringing on our copyright by producing works derived from materials that you used."1. https://llmlitigation.com/pdf/03223/tremblay-openai-complain...
Re: Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
Society. Regular people.
How so?
Re: Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement
#280If they ripped all of Bibliotik, the more interesting story to me is how they were able to get it all without hitting ratio requirements? Super fast internet that downloaded all they could before being ratio banned, overwhelmingly fast internet that was hopping on all the popular torrents to slowly build up ratio?
How does Bibliotik base their rate limiting? Per-IP? Per-account? Would it be possible to create a massive number of accounts and use a massive network of crawlers that could work around rate limits?