OpenAI declares AI race “over” if training on copyrighted works isn’t fair use
-
Copyright has not, was not intended to, and does not currently, pay artists.
You are correct, copyright is ownership, not income. I own the copyright for all my work (but not work for hire) and what I do with it is my discretion.
What is income, is the content I sell for the price acceptable to the buyer. Copyright (as originally conceived) is my protection so someone doesn't take my work and use it to undermine my skillset. One of the reasons why penalties for copyright infringement don't need actual damages and why Facebook (and other AI companies) are starting to sweat bullets and hire lawyers.
That said, as a creative who relied on artistic income and pays other creatives appropriately, modern copyright law is far, far overreaching and in need of major overhaul. Gatekeeping was never the intent of early copyright and can fuck right off; if I paid for it, they don't get to say no.
Copyright does not give the holder control over every "use", especially something as vague as "using it to undermine their skillset".
Copyright gives the rights holder a limited monopoly on three activities: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly.
Not all uses involve making a copy, derivative, or performance.
-
all billionaires do
Yeah but his especially, it's so squishy.
-
Yes, whether copyright should exist is a different discussion than how AI is violating it in a very different way than snippets being reused in different contexts as part of a new creative work.
Intentionally using a single line is very different than scooping up all the data and hitting a randomizer until it stumbles into some combination that happens to look usable. Kind of like how a single business jacking up prices is different than a monopoly jacking up all the prices.
Stripping away your carefully crafted wording, the differences fade away. "Hitting a randomizer" until usable ideas come out is an equally inaccurate description of either human creativity or AI. And again, the contention is that using AI violates copyright, not how it allegedly does that.
-
And how do you think that's going to go when suddenly the creator needs to compete with massive corps?
The reason copyright exists is for the same reason patents do: to protect the little guy.
Just because corporations abuse it doesn't mean we throw it out.
It shouldn't be long, but it sure should be longer than 5 years.
Or maybe 5 years unless it's an individual.
Edit - think logically. You think the corps are winning now with the current state of copyright? They won't NEED to own everything without copyright and patent laws. They'll just be able to make profit off your work without passing any of it to the creator.
Oh so like the music industry where every artist retains full rights to their work and the only 3 big publishers definitely don't force them to sell all their rights leaving musicians with basically nothing but touring revenue? Protecting the little guy like that you mean?
Or maybe protecting the little guy like how 5 tech companies own all the key patents required for networking, 3d graphics, and digital audio? And how those same companies control social media so if you are any kind of artist you are forced to hustle nonstop on their platforms for any hope if reaching an audience with your work? I'm sure all those YouTube creators feel very protected.
-
This post did not contain any content.
over it is then. Buh bye!
-
This post did not contain any content.
The only way this would be ok is if openai was actually open. make the entire damn thing free and open source, and most of the complaints will go away.
-
It's classic false consciousness of the temporarily embarrassed billionaire, except for the benefit of the blood
mouse in this case
-
Why does Sam have such a punchable face?
Cosmic justice?
-
all billionaires do
let's have a tier list of billionaires by face punchability.
-
Because once you can generate the GPL code from the lossy ai database trained on it the GPL protection is meaningless.
In such a scenario, it will be worth it. Llm aren't databases that just hold copy pasted information. If we get to a point where it can spit out whole functional githubs replicating complex software, it will be able to do so with most software regardless of being trained on similar data or not.
All software will be a prompt away including the closed sourced ones. I don't think you can get more open source then that. But that's only if strident laws aren't put in place to ban open source ai models, since Google will put that one prompt behind a paychecks worth of money if they can.
-
any book ever written
Damn! Which library are you going to?!
if the library doesn’t have a book, they will order it from another library….
every american library… -
This post did not contain any content.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Perhaps this is just a problem with the way the model works. Always requiring new data and unable to use current data, to ponder and expand upon while making new connections about ideas that influenced the author… LLM’s are a smoke and mirrors show, not a real intelligence.
-
if the library doesn’t have a book, they will order it from another library….
every american library…Mine doesn't...
-
The one I thought was a good compromise was 14 years, with the option to file again for a single renewal for a second 14 years. That was the basic system in the US for quite a while, and it has the benefit of being a good fit for the human life span--it means that the stuff that was popular with our parents when we were kids, i.e. the cultural milieu in which we were raised, would be public domain by the time we were adults, and we'd be free to remix it and revisit it. It also covers the vast majority of the sales lifetime of a work, and makes preservation and archiving more generally feasible.
5 years may be an overcorrection, but I think very limited terms like that are closer to the right solution than our current system is.
Exactly! That's what we had originally in the US, and I thought that was more than fair. I would add that the renewal should only be awarded if they can prove they need more time to recoup R&D costs and it's still available commercially.
So yeah, something in the neighborhood of 10-15 years w/ a renewal sounds totally fair to me. Let them keep the trademarks and whatnot as long as they're in use (e.g. you shouldn't be able to make a new entry in a series w/o the author's permission for the marks, but fanfic that explicitly mentions it's not original/canon would probably fall under fair use), but the actual copyright should expire very quickly.
-
how about: tiered copy rights?
after 5 years, you lose some copyright but not all?it’s a tricky one but impoverished people should still be able to access culture…
What does that even mean though? Like, you would retain the ability to sell and modify it but not a monopoly on free distribution?
I think 10-15 years, i.e. the original copyright act in the US (14 years) is totally fair, and allow a one-time renewal if you can prove it's still available for purchase and losing copyright would impact your livelihood or something.
-
let's have a tier list of billionaires by face punchability.
my top 3:
#1 Elon Musk
#2 Mark Zuckerberg
#3 Jeff Bezos
-
Mine doesn't...
are you sure? have you actually tried? or maybe ask a librarian?
most public libraries are part of a network of libraries… and a lot of their services aren’t immediately obvious….
also, all libraries have computers and free internet access…
i’d like to ask what library in particular, but you probably don’t want to dox yourself like that…. -
And how do you think that's going to go when suddenly the creator needs to compete with massive corps?
The reason copyright exists is for the same reason patents do: to protect the little guy.
Just because corporations abuse it doesn't mean we throw it out.
It shouldn't be long, but it sure should be longer than 5 years.
Or maybe 5 years unless it's an individual.
Edit - think logically. You think the corps are winning now with the current state of copyright? They won't NEED to own everything without copyright and patent laws. They'll just be able to make profit off your work without passing any of it to the creator.
The original 14-year duration w/ an optional renewal is pretty fair IMO. That's long enough that the work has likely lost popularity, but not so long that it's irrelevant. Renewals should be approved based on need (i.e. I'm currently living off the royalties).
The current copyright term in the US is utterly atrocious.
Oh, we should also consider copyright null and void once it's no longer available commercially for a "reasonable" price. As in, if I can't go buy the book or movie today for a similar price to the original launch (or less), then you should lose copyright protections.
-
my top 3:
#1 Elon Musk
#2 Mark Zuckerberg
#3 Jeff Bezos
I hate zuckerburg as much as anyone, but I find his face surprisingly low on the punchability index. Musk and Bezos at 1 and 2 for me.
