I feel compelled to support banning AI from infringing on art, even though most pop songs are terrible.
"pop" music had its own avalanche of slop long before the advent of AI. Soulless reproductions and remixes of once-popular songs are everywhere.
OpenAI may not use lyrics without license, German court rules
91–100 of 256 posts
Re: OpenAI may not use lyrics without license, German court rules
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
> However, the lyrics are shown because an action is the user so, shouldn't be the user be liable instead? Same goes for websites where you can watch piracy streams. "The action is the user pressing play" sounds like it might win you an internet argument, but I'm 99% sure none of the courts will play those games, you as the operator who enabled whatever the user could do ends up liable.
I think that is completely different. Piracy websites do only one thing. Chatbots are different. My concern is that where are we going to put the line: If I type a copyrighted song in Word is Microsoft liable? If I upload a lyric to ChatGPT and ask it to analyze or translate it, is it a copyright violation? I totally understand your line of thinking. However, the one I'm suggesting could be applied as well and it has…
> I think that is completely different. Piracy websites do only one thing. Chatbots are different.
Well...YouTube is liable for any copyrighted material on their site, and do 'more than one thing'
Re: OpenAI may not use lyrics without license, German court rules
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don’t think a country’s government can justify no commercial LLMs to its populace They're not saying no LLMs, they're saying no LLMs using lyrics without a license. OpenAI simply need to pay for a license, or train an LLM without using lyrics.
But lyrics are just one example. Are you saying that training experiments must filter out all substrings from the training input that bear too close a resemblance to a substring of a copyrighted work?
Obviously there's a limit, reproducing a single sentence is unlikely to be copyright infringement just because there are only so many words in a language; but if reproducing some text would be copyright infringement if a human did it, I don't see why LLM companies should get a free pass.
If it's really essential that they train their models on song lyrics, or books, or movie scripts, or articles, or whatever, they should pay license fees.
Re: OpenAI may not use lyrics without license, German court rules
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah. It’s so easy for OpenAI to modify their output. I’m already seeing them restrict news article re-generation by newspaper name. They do it to reduce liability. There’s also a big copyright infringement case coming up in the USA this year, and being able to point to responsiveness to complaints will be a key part of their legal defense I bet.
You can modify the output but the underlying model is always susceptible to jail breaks. A method I tried a couple months ago to reliably get it to explain to me how to cook meth step by step still works. I’m not gonna share it, you just have to take my word on this.
Why is this so problematic? You can read all this stuff in old papers and patents that are available in the web.
And if you are not capable to do this you will likely not succeed with the chatgpt instructions.
Re: OpenAI may not use lyrics without license, German court rules
#95While I partially understand (but not support) the hate against AI due to possible plagiarism and "low effort generation" of works, think about the whole process: If model providers will be liable for generating output, that resembles lyrics or very short texts that fall under copyright laws, they will just change their business model. E.g. why offering lame chat agents as a service, when you can keep the value gener…
This sounds like a much more niche product that doesn't justify the over half-trillion dollars invested into it so far.
For AI to have a positive ROI, it has to be highly applicable to basically every industry, and has to be highly available.
Re: OpenAI may not use lyrics without license, German court rules
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
They scan for commercial work already. Isn’t the law about training, not output?
Perhaps; I didn't read the court ruling. But I'd be surprised if that was generally the case. It's easy to see why ChatGPT 1:1 reproducing a song's lyrics would be a copyright issue. But creating a derivative work based on the song? What if I made a website that counts the number of alliterations in certain songs' lyrics? Would that be copyright infringement, because my algorithm uses the original lyrics to derive it…
> 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 defendants, but the respective user who would be liable for it, OpenAI had argued.
and the court oder said more or less
- if it can reproduce the song lyrics it means it stored a copy of the song lyrics somehow somewhere (memorization), but storing copies requires a license and OpenAI has no license
- it it outputs a copy of the song lyrics it means it's making another copy of them and giving them to the user which is copyright infringement
and this makes sens, if a human memorizes a song and then writes it down when asked it's still is and always has been copyright infringement (else you could just launder copy right by hiring people to memorize things and then write them down, which would be ridiculous).
and technically speaking LLMs are at the core a lossy compressed storage of their training content + statistic models about them. And to be clear that isn't some absurd around five corners reasoning. It's a pretty core aspect of their design. And to be clear this are things well know even before LLMs became a big deal and OpenAI got huge investment. OpenAI pretty much knew about this being a problem from the get to go. But like any recent big US "startup" following the law doesn't matter.
it technically being a unusual form of lossy compressed storage means it makes that the memorization counts as a copyright infringement (with current law)
but I would argue the law should be improved in that case, so that under some circumstances "memorization" in LLMs is treated as "memorization" in Humans (i.e. not a illegal copy, until you make it one by writing it down). But you can't make it all circumstances because like mentioned you can use the same tech to bascially to lossy file compression and you don't want people to launder copy right by training an LLM on a a single text/song/movie and then distributing that...
Re: OpenAI may not use lyrics without license, German court rules
#97While I partially understand (but not support) the hate against AI due to possible plagiarism and "low effort generation" of works, think about the whole process: If model providers will be liable for generating output, that resembles lyrics or very short texts that fall under copyright laws, they will just change their business model. E.g. why offering lame chat agents as a service, when you can keep the value gener…
> Then have a lawyer checking right before publishing.
Your cheap app just got really expensive
Re: OpenAI may not use lyrics without license, German court rules
#98With AI slop showing up everywhere, there’s a real danger that folks will just no longer be motivated to produce real original content. With all major models not basically trained on nearly all available data, beyond the financial AI bubble about to burst there’s also a big content bubble that’s about exhausted as folks are just pumping out slop vs producing original creative human output. That may be the ultimate lo…
I will not stop writing music or drawing my furry bullshit, no matter the culture climate around me. Don't get your hopes up ;3
When you're the only one doing it, you'll have a large impact on model generation
Re: OpenAI may not use lyrics without license, German court rules
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should the user be liable? They didn't reproduce the copyrighted work and the machine is totally capable of denying output (like it already does for other categories of material). At the very least, the users being liable instead of OpenAI makes no sense. Like arresting only drug users and not dealers.
There are countries where drug consumption/posesion is penalized too. There is a similar example in other area: For instance, in Sweeden, Norway and Belize selling sex (aka prostitution) is legal, but buying it is not legal. So, your example actually exists in world legislation. I'm just asking where are we going to put the line and why.
You had originally said the user should be liable instead of OpenAI being liable.
> However, the lyrics are shown because the user requested them, shouldn't be the user be liable instead?
I would imagine the sociological rationale for allowing sex work would not map to a multi-billion-dollar company.
And to add, the social network example doesn't map because the user is producing the content and sharing it with the network. In OpenAI's case, they are creating and distributing copyrighted works.
Re: OpenAI may not use lyrics without license, German court rules
#100While I partially understand (but not support) the hate against AI due to possible plagiarism and "low effort generation" of works, think about the whole process: If model providers will be liable for generating output, that resembles lyrics or very short texts that fall under copyright laws, they will just change their business model. E.g. why offering lame chat agents as a service, when you can keep the value gener…
> 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?