New York Times considers legal action against OpenAI as copyright tensions swirl

Post by bandrami » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 8:18 AM UTC

test098 wrote: post #60

prepend wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think OpenAI doesn’t subscribe? I too load creative works into all sorts of temporary structures in order to read the paper. I don’t need to license it, I pay for a subscription. Should I pay more if I memorize the paper? Should I pay more if I read it to my sick friend in the hospital? Should I pay more if I save copies to my own hard drive and grep for words in the files? Should robots have a higher subscrip…

a subscription doesn't give you an automatic escape hatch out of copyright law. here's their ToS, which is pretty clear about what you cannot do: https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/115014893428-Term... (relevant parts below) Without NYT’s prior written consent, you shall not: ... (2) use robots, spiders, scripts, service, software or any manual or automatic device, tool, or process designed to data mine or sc…

Post by bandrami » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 8:19 AM UTC

mike_hearn wrote: post #78

twoodfin wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don’t need a fair use exemption for transient copies in service of licensed or fair uses. Computers and networks have been around a long time. These issues have been given a good workout.

But the copy used during training is itself transient, so all this boils down really to the question of whether training a machine is fair use. Which can't be answered here exactly because the concept of fair use is deliberately vague, so this will boil down to a lawsuit and probably go to the Supremes. The USA will work something out that's reasonable as they always do and, lacking AI companies and often the concept…

Post by bandrami » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 8:21 AM UTC

twelve40 wrote: post #89

kolinko wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google does the same to produce a search index.

you can easily opt out of that, or control it to your heart's desire (including what snippets to show), and it will be honored. There is no way to opt out of this bullshit. So no, not the same at all.

Post by bandrami » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 8:24 AM UTC

swalling wrote: post #16

dragonwriter wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I think the Times has a far better case for presenting mechanical copies (including with mechanical alteration) than it does with model training. The tool building of model training is more likely to be fair use than the use of the tool to provide mechanical copies of copyirght-protected material that competes directly with the original in the market.

Fair use only covers very limited circumstances which probably does not include selling a subscription (ChatGPT+). If you’re selling a repackaged reproduction of someone else’s copyrighted works, that’s never protected by fair use.

Post by bandrami » Thu, Aug 17, 2023, 8:26 AM UTC

bubblethink wrote: post #61

test098 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ignorance of copyright law won't save you here. i can't legally torrent a copywrited music file just because "no tos to agree to" when i listen to it.

There is no copyright involved in training a model. No precedent at least. Only online ToS/API restrictions exist for scraping content. The DMCA issues exist entirely on the (re)distribution side of coyright material. So seeding in a torrent swarm = redistribution. If you download some copyright material somehow and don't share it with anyone, there is no caselaw that says anything about it.