this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2024
334 points (96.1% liked)

Technology

83452 readers
2635 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
334
Microsoft, OpenAI sued for copyright infringement by nonfiction book authors in class action claim (www.cnbc.com)
submitted 2 years ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
58 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Microsoft, OpenAI sued for copyright infringement by nonfiction book authors in class action claim::The new copyright infringement lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI comes a week after The New York Times filed a similar complaint in New York.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] FreeFacts@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I fail to see how seeing snippets of said work returned in a Google summary is any different than ChatGPT or any other LLM doing the same.

Just because it was available for the public internet doesn't mean it was available legally. Google has a way to remove it from their index when asked, while it seems that OpenAI has no way to do so (or will to do so).

[โ€“] LWD@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago

The SFWA has actually talked about this: when they made their books more accessible, they became easier to scrape.

"Our authors and readers have been asking for this for a long time," president and publisher Tom Doherty explained at the time. "They're a technically sophisticated bunch, and DRM is a constant annoyance to them. It prevents them from using legitimately-purchased e-books in perfectly legal ways, like moving them from one kind of e-reader to another."

But DRM-free e-books that circulate online are easy for scrapers to ingest.

The SFWA submission suggests "Authors who have made their work available in forms free of restrictive technology such as DRM for the benefit of their readers may have especially been taken advantage of."