AI is stealing writers’ words and jobs…

[Snarf Zagyg]

I picked the wrong day to give up drinking.

Nobody likes a quitter!

 

[Scribe]

This strongly suggests that the folks getting this data know it is legally dicey.

Well, that and the open admissions to that effect.

 

[Umbran]

Well, that and the open admissions to that effect.

I didn't have any references to quote handy.

 

[Scribe]

I didn't have any references to quote handy.

OpenAI has said they couldnt have done it without copyright breach.

Midjourney has a tweet around here somewhere, and Meta also has a comment about it.

Everyone knows its been theft, and its just up to the lobbyists ($$$) to do their magic to see if they can turn that around.

 

[trappedslider]

someone needs to make a new anti-piracy ad but this time with "You wouldn't train an AI..."

 

[Sacrosanct]

I didn't have any references to quote handy.

I know it’s a fast moving thread, but several pages back I linked to quotes and screen shots.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Relevant article that came out two days ago.

Money quote:
Meta has acknowledged using parts of the Books3 dataset but argued that its use of copyrighted works to train LLMs did not require "consent, credit, or compensation." The company refutes claims of infringing the plaintiffs' "alleged" copyrights, contending that any unauthorized copies of copyrighted works in Books3 should be considered fair use.


So the chief of Meta is outright saying it out loud "Creators shouldn't be compensated, and if we have to, we'll just pirate it anyway and claim Fair Use."

I read it as "per our reading of the law, what we did wasn't protected by copyright, therefore we owe no compensation, and we'll argue in that sense in court". Maybe you could read more into it and conclude that it's equivalent to "and if we fail, then our reading of the law isn't exact and we'll apply our lobbying power to ensure that the law changes so that what we want to do is no longer protected by copyright." But I don't think it's fair to say that their intent is to keep doing something that would be deemed illegal, at this point.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

EDIT:
Hell, even if it was an American court or some European country or somewhere in the Commonwealth I'd still steer clear of using it as the basis for any sort of moral conclusion. Although the legal side of it would likely be more relevant to most people here.

Without claiming to be an expert on US copyright law at all, I'd say that it's only there that a vague ruling is putting AI copyright in question. Besides, claiming legality and ethics probably won't work for any country. According to Wikipedia's detailed copyright explanation, since Ethiopia and the US don't have an agreement on copyright, unpublished works in Ethiopia enjoy protection in the US but published works in Ethiopia can be copied without legal recourse. I am not certain that everyone would find it ethical, if their point is that every artistic work "deserves" compensation. I am pretty sure exceptions like that exists in any legal systems.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I read it as "per our reading of the law, what we did wasn't protected by copyright, therefore we owe no compensation, and we'll argue in that sense in court". Maybe you could read more into it and conclude that it's equivalent to "and if we fail, then our reading of the law isn't exact and we'll apply our lobbying power to ensure that the law changes so that what we want to do is no longer protected by copyright." But I don't think it's fair to say that their intent is to keep doing something that would be deemed illegal, at this point.

What they are saying is that copyright laws shouldn't apply to Books3 (with no explanation why that unauthorized use by Books3 should be Fair Use, because that's not what Fair use is), and since they use Books3, they shouldn't have to get permission or give compensation to creators.

Does anyone buy that?

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

What they are saying is that copyright laws shouldn't apply to Books3 (with no explanation why that unauthorized use by Books3 should be Fair Use, because that's not what Fair use is), and since they use Books3, they shouldn't have to get permission or give compensation to creators.

Does anyone buy that?

I don't know. It's the US legal system. If they convince the judge that it is fair use, then apparently it will be. I am not privy into the legal argument they will develop to show that use by Books3 is fair use. But it's not the same as saying "we'll pirate it anyway", but I am certain they can pay lawyers to write a convincing argument to defend their idea. Any idea when the outcome is expected?