OpenAI pleads it can't make money with o using copyrighted material for free
1–10 of 23 posts
Re: OpenAI pleads it can't make money with o using copyrighted material for free
#2So? Making money is not a legal right. Copyright is. If you can't make money without misappropriating copyrighted material, then you can't make money that way.
Re: OpenAI pleads it can't make money with o using copyrighted material for free
#3So? Making money is not a legal right. Copyright is. If you can't make money without misappropriating copyrighted material, then you can't make money that way.
It's a clickbait title, this is not what they are arguing
> "Because copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression — including blog posts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents — it would be impossible to train today's leading AI models without using copyrighted materials," the company wrote in the evidence filing. "Limiting training data to public domain books and drawings created more than a century ago might yield an interesting experiment, but would not provide AI systems that meet the needs of today's citizens."
> OpenAI went on to insist in the document, submitted before the House of Lords' communications and digital committee, that it complies with copyright laws and that the company believes "legally copyright law does not forbid training."
Re: OpenAI pleads it can't make money with o using copyrighted material for free
#4So? Making money is not a legal right. Copyright is. If you can't make money without misappropriating copyrighted material, then you can't make money that way.
It's a clickbait title, this is not what they are arguing > "Because copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression — including blog posts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents — it would be impossible to train today's leading AI models without using copyrighted materials," the company wrote in the evidence filing. "Limiting training data to public domain books…
> it would be impossible to train today's leading AI models without using copyrighted materials,"
Why not just license them like everyone else?
> but would not provide AI systems that meet the needs of today’s citizens.
Needs is doing a lot of work here.
Re: OpenAI pleads it can't make money with o using copyrighted material for free
#5So? Making money is not a legal right. Copyright is. If you can't make money without misappropriating copyrighted material, then you can't make money that way.
It's a clickbait title, this is not what they are arguing > "Because copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression — including blog posts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents — it would be impossible to train today's leading AI models without using copyrighted materials," the company wrote in the evidence filing. "Limiting training data to public domain books…
"Limiting training data to public domain books and drawings created more than a century ago might yield an interesting experiment, but would not provide AI systems that meet the needs of today's citizens."
They need a new market. This is precisely the kind of AI system I'd love to use.
Re: OpenAI pleads it can't make money with o using copyrighted material for free
#6So? Making money is not a legal right. Copyright is. If you can't make money without misappropriating copyrighted material, then you can't make money that way.
It's a clickbait title, this is not what they are arguing > "Because copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression — including blog posts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents — it would be impossible to train today's leading AI models without using copyrighted materials," the company wrote in the evidence filing. "Limiting training data to public domain books…
Yes and no.
They are arguing that the current copyright laws do not forbid training. And they are arguing that they need to train on copyrighted data in order to be able to make an effective tool (and make money).
That second part of the argument is there because, so far as I know, nobody has ruled (in any country) on the legality of using copyrighted material as training for LLMs that will then produce commercially-available output. So the first part is a claim, but it's not a ruled-upon claim. It's not a claim that OpenAI can count on a court agreeing with. So they add the second argument, which amounts to "please interpret copyright law that way, and if the courts don't, please change copyright law that way, or else we can't sell what we make (and therefore can't make any money)".
I take no position on the first claim. All I'm saying is that the appropriate response to the second claim is, "So what? The world doesn't owe you a living."
Re: OpenAI pleads it can't make money with o using copyrighted material for free
#7Regarding "it would be impossible to train today's leading AI models": OpenAI has a pattern of equating humanity's progress with their own progress in their corporate communication.
A similar instance that bugs me is on the documentation page for their GPTBot scraper (https://platform.openai.com/docs/gptbot) where they say "Allowing GPTBot to access your site can help AI models become more accurate". Strange wording, given that is specifically OpenAI's models you're allowing, not "AI models" in general.
The goal is both cases is to make you feel like you're standing in the way of progress by objecting.
Re: OpenAI pleads it can't make money with o using copyrighted material for free
#8So? Making money is not a legal right. Copyright is. If you can't make money without misappropriating copyrighted material, then you can't make money that way.
This is such an insane take.
At this point, I think as a society we need to just say copyright as a concept and law has completely failed and scrap the whole thing.
The 0.01% of powerful copyright cartel publishers get rich while harming 99.99% of people, because we've seen further erosion of fair use rights, absurdly lengthy expansions of copyright to prop up Disney's profits and expansive interpretation of how much control copyright olders have and zero punishment for abuse of DMCA and other things.
Students should be able to learn from books, music, film. So should AI training models.
If there is any ambiguity about this, we should immediately write laws making it clear that training and education of all forms is explicitly allowed under fair use. Ideally, we also send anyone trying to prevent this to the guillotines.
Re: OpenAI pleads it can't make money with o using copyrighted material for free
#9So? Making money is not a legal right. Copyright is. If you can't make money without misappropriating copyrighted material, then you can't make money that way.
This is such an insane take. At this point, I think as a society we need to just say copyright as a concept and law has completely failed and scrap the whole thing. The 0.01% of powerful copyright cartel publishers get rich while harming 99.99% of people, because we've seen further erosion of fair use rights, absurdly lengthy expansions of copyright to prop up Disney's profits and expansive interpretation of how much…
Fine then, let's get rid of software copyrights too. We can copy the AI software, models, datasets all we want. They don't get copyright protection for their software while declaring that everybody else doesn't get copyright protection for their work.
Re: OpenAI pleads it can't make money with o using copyrighted material for free
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a clickbait title, this is not what they are arguing > "Because copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression — including blog posts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents — it would be impossible to train today's leading AI models without using copyrighted materials," the company wrote in the evidence filing. "Limiting training data to public domain books…
> it would be impossible to train today's leading AI models without using copyrighted materials," Why not just license them like everyone else? > but would not provide AI systems that meet the needs of today’s citizens. Needs is doing a lot of work here.
Because they’re not reproducing it.