421
Sarah Silverman Sues Maker Of ChatGPT For Copyright Infringement
(www.huffpost.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
421 points (94.7% liked)
Technology
34781 readers
243 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
It depends on if the summary is an infringing derivative work, doesn't it? Wikipedia is full of summaries, for example, and it's not violating copyright.
If they illegally downloaded the works, that feels like a standalone issue to me, not having anything to do with AI.
Wikipedia is a non profit whose primary purpose is education. ChatGPT is a business venture.
A book review published in a newspaper is a commercial venture for the purpose of selling ads. The commercial aspect doesn't make the review an infringement.
A summary is a "Transformative Derivation". It is a related work, created for a fundamentally different purpose. It is a discussion about the work, not a copy of the work. Transformative derivations are not infringements, even where they are specifically intended to be used for commercial purposes.
A book review is most likely critical, and thus falls under fair use.
A summary is not critical, so would not have a fair use exemption. I would also disagree that it is transformative. That argument is about work that is so different to the original that it must be considered a separate piece (eg new music that uses a sample from old music). A summary is inherently not transformative, because it is merely a shortened version of the original - the ideas expressed are the same.
Transformative doesn't mean that the idea is different. It means the purpose for expressing the idea is different. Informing an individual or the general public of the general idea presented in a book is not an infringement. If it were, every book report every student is ever asked to write would be an infringement.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_use
A summary would not place the original work in a new light. A summary is the same work but shorter. A summary would be infringement.
Student book reports are for educational purposes, which has its own specific exemption under fair use. As does work which is critical of the original, along with news. A critical piece, for example, is transformative because it introduces new ideas, talking about the work and framing it in new ways.
AI meets none of these exemptions with a summary. It's debatable whether it even could meet these exemptions in the way that it functions.
You're forgetting two other important categories of fair use. Paste that student's book report in a newspaper, and it is no longer "educational", but it is still "news reporting". "Author publishes work" is a newsworthy event.
Paste it in response to an individual asking about the work, and again, it is no longer educational, but it is still "commentary", which is much the same as news reporting but with a typically smaller audience.
Even if these two categories of fair use were not specifically included in copyright law, they would naturally arises from the right to free speech. Making a summary subject to the original copyright would make it unlawful for anyone to even discuss the work at all.
You're really stretching to try and make your arguments seem correct.
Nah, rightsholder organizations have been spreading their FUD propaganda since the advent of the cassette tape and VHS. They have tried, but they have never won a case against someone solely for receiving and saving a work. Downloading is not a crime in and of itself. The criminal act is uploading.
None of it is a crime unless you're doing it for profit - commercial copyright infringement. Regular copyright infringement is a civil offense, which is why it's up to the rightsholder to prosecute a claim. Any claim will have cost but also uncertainty, hence why if the value of the claim is low they won't bother - even if the case is strong - to avoid the risk of losing over some small procedural matter. Also typically in the US you don't get awarded costs, so if your claim isn't going to meet your costs it will always be a net loss.
Downloading most definitely is the civil offense of copyright infringement. It's just not worth prosecuting - the most they could claim for is the cost of a single download, which is far less than the cost of going to court.
To argue otherwise is to claim you can legally take whatever you like without paying for it.
Do you not understand the fundamental purpose of copyright law? It is not to ensure that artists get paid. The purpose is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts". The purpose is to expand the depth and breadth of public knowledge; to push ideas into the public domain, where they can be used by anyone.
You're getting so hung up on the method of copyright that you're ignoring its purpose. Yes, you can legally receive whatever you like without paying for it. The trick is in finding someone willing to send it to you. That sender might be prohibited from sending it, and you might be prohibited from sending it to others, but there is nothing in copyright law that prohibits you from receiving it.
The value of winning a single case of infringement against a downloader is the precedent it sets. The costs associated with that first case are miniscule relative to the benefits. Winning that first case would allow rightsholders to truly annihilate P2P platforms. With that one case as precedent, they could credibly demand billions in settlements from the American public.
No, that "not worth the cost to prosecute" claim is complete and total horseshit. The reality is that every time they have tried to target downloaders, their cases have been dismissed long before going to trial, because they can't show how a downloader runs afoul of copyright law. The law targets distribution, not reception.
A quick search provides plenty of links to say you're wrong. In particular with respect to downloading from the internet, which is significantly different to receiving a physical item.
When you download, you create a copy on your computer. You read a file from a server, then write it to your local storage.
Sure, maybe buying a pirated CD may be legal for the buyer, but copying that CD would not be - and like I say, there is the argument that playing the CD is a form of copying that is only permitted with a license from the rightsholder. However downloading is regarded as a form of copying that is only permissible with permission from the rightsholder.
You are trying to justify something that no reasonable person - let alone a court - would justify.
None of those links are to federal statutes. Some are to government sites, but not to the statutes. The statutes do not support your claims.
VHS and cassette recordings of broadcast or pirate transmissions also end up with a copy of the work in the possession of the receiver. Both are legal. It is not legal to share or retransmit those recordings, but those recordings are themselves legal to create and consume.
No. You're radically oversimplifying the scenario. You're ignoring the second party involved.
P2P downloading is like calling up a pirate radio station and asking them to play a song. You set up your recording device, and wait for them to play it.. The recording you make is legal. The act of requesting the song does not obligate the station to play it. They can ignore your request, or play it immediately, or play it three nights later. Their choice to play it is theirs alone. Their playing it is the infringement.
P2P downloading, your computer sends a request to the server. Depending on how the server is configured by the uploader and the resources available to it, it may or may not begin sending the requested work.