I’ve generally been against giving AI works copyright, but this article presented what I felt were compelling arguments for why I might be wrong. What do you think?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yes, it absolutely hinges on fair use. That’s why the very first page of the lawsuit alleges:

      “Defendants’ LLMs endanger fiction writers’ ability to make a living, in that the LLMs allow anyone to generate—automatically and freely (or very cheaply)—texts that they would otherwise pay writers to create”

      If the court agrees with that claim, it will basically kill the fair use defense.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and the effect of the use upon the potential market.

          Yes, and I named three of those factors:

          the key questions are often whether the use of the work (a) is commercial, or (b) may substitute for the original work. Furthermore, the amount of the work copied is also considered.

          And while you don’t need to meet all the criteria, the odds are pretty long when you fail three of the four (commercial nature, copying complete work rather than a portion, and negative effect on the market for the original).

          Think of it this way: if it were legal to download books in order to train an AI, then it would also be legal to download books in order to train a human student. After all, why would a human have fewer rights than an AI?

          Do you really think courts are going to decide that it’s ok to download books from The Pirate Bay or Z-Library, provided they are being read by the next generation of writers?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Again, it’s not a question of reproducing books in an LLM. The allegation is that the openAI developers downloaded books illegally to train their AI.

              You need to pay for your copy of a book. That’s true if you are a student teaching yourself to write, and it’s also true if you are an AI developer training an AI to write. In the latter case, you might also need to pay for a special license.

              Is it possible that the openAI developers can bring the receipts showing they paid for each and every book and/or license they needed to train their AI? Sure, it’s possible. If so, the lawyers who brought the suit would look pretty silly for not even bother to check.

              But openAI used a whole lot of books, which cost a whole lot of money. So I wouldn’t hold my breath.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Simple question:

                  If you are college student, learning to write professionally, is it fair use to download copyrighted books from Z-Library in order to become a better writer? If you are a musician, is it fair use to download mp3s from The Pirate Bay in order to learn about musical styles? How about film students, can they torrent Disney movies as part of their education?

                  I’m certain that every court in the US would rule that this is not fair use. It’s not fair use even if pirated content ultimately teaches a student how to create original, groundbreaking works of writing, music, and film.

                  Simply being a student does not give someone free pass to pirate content. The same is true of training an AI, and there are already reports that pirated material is in the openAI training set.

                  If openAI could claim fair use, then almost by definition The Pirate Bay could claim fair use too.