This is a lobby organisation using only the pieces and bits they like to push their own agenda.
"sketchy russian website", how about using some more clear description like: A library for sharing books and articles that should be partly public domain because they were paid for by the public. Only some of the material is copyrighted by authors. However, some of their work is so old that it is not reprinted anyway.
But of course such an explanation would not click.
I also don't see a problem with statements about making people jobless. Imagine if every robotic or automation company advertised like this: Yeah, you'll buy tons of expensive robots and still rely on expensive labor from real people without any efficiency gains.
It's just sad that this is the top comment on Hacker News. Why are we giving free pass to these tech companies? Why are we trusting these CEOs when they have repeatedly broken laws? Remember Aaron Swartz and the fate he suffered? Why is big tech getting away with so much more?
> Remember Aaron Swartz and the fate he suffered? Why is big tech getting away with so much more?
Why are you turning him into perpetuum mobile in his grave?
Do you really believe Aaron would be arguing against AI companies and for publishing / recording guilds on the grounds of intellectual property claims?
No, it's the tech community that did a sudden about-face, and is now all "friendship ended with free access to information and technologies enabling people; now RIAA is my best friend", and this move is as dumb as that meme (<a href="https://imgflip.com/memegenerator/137501417/Friendship-ended" rel="nofollow">https://imgflip.com/memegenerator/137501417/Friendship-ended).
C: "Information is free only for the rich and not free for everyone else, giving the rich a material advantage over everyone else that not only entrenches but accelerates wealth inequality and impedes class mobility"
You, or Swartz, are an advocate for A. Why, exactly, do you think that obliges you/Swartz to prefer C over B while A is not true?
Sure it’s not free for anyone and both companies and individuals are treated similarly. It’s not like you will be jailed for pirating movies. And neither should OpenAI. What part of this is hard to understand
> It’s not like you will be jailed for pirating movies.
We're literally talking in a thread about someone who committed suicide because the US government was hellbent on ruining his life with a felony conviction for piracy.
Sounds like a gross misapplication of the law enforcement system. The free exchange of information should be legalised.
As we can see in the good article, the copyright system might almost have cost us a lot of AI capabilities. The damage it has done in cases where the lawyers got ahead of the builders is incalculable.
The labs aren’t doing this. They are doing something similar to you and I downloading torrents. Look, I also think laws should apply somewhat equally to individuals and companies. But this is different.
According to the people trying to ruin his life. This is an accused thought crime, not something he actually did. Also, supposing it actually was something he did, your argument is that building a trillion dollar business on stolen licensed material is legally permissible but giving it away for free is worthy of your life being ruined. Wonderfully coherent world view, that is. Piracy is fine, but only if you hoard it to yourself and profit from it!
They certainly seem intent on producing and distributing materials based on that licensed material, and stripping out the licensing and pretending it never existed.
That doesn't seem different to me. Copyright, inherits.
If its fair use, like the companies currently claim, maybe it is different. But I suspect that the insane push to create a copyright carveout in countries around the world, is not unrelated to a judgement that it probably isn't fair use.
Their models, all of them. This has been shown repeatedly when models can return, verbatim, copyrighted material when asked. New York Times is suing over this.
It would be like if I sold you a pizza, but when you opened the box it contained all the source code for the latest GTA. The pizza wasn't copyrighted by anyone, but the what was inside the box was.
A xerox machine can produce verbatim copyrighted works when asked as well. That doesn’t make distributing the xerox machine the same as distributing the copyrighted works.
Strong IP advocates have argued for years that devices that can be used to infringe copyright are themselves infringement of copyright. So far that hasn’t held up to court analysis provided that device can be and is also used for non-infringing purposes. Given that so far the courts have found that training an AI model is sufficiently transformative to qualify as fair use, it doesn’t seem likely that distributing a model counts as distributing copyrighted material.
Your analogy would only be correct if I when bought a xerox machine and brought it home, I could just ask it to print out the copyrighted works without me having them to put on the glass. It's not making a copy from one I already had, but providing me a copy when I didn't have the original.
>training an AI model is sufficiently transformative to qualify as fair use
This is the key question and that courts have decided this way so far doesn't mean its the correct decision. If the model can encode the copyrighted material with sufficient fidelity to reproduce them on command, it stops being fair use or should anyway.
> Your analogy would only be correct if I when bought a xerox machine and brought it home, I could just ask it to print out the copyrighted works without me having them to put on the glass. It's not making a copy from one I already had, but providing me a copy when I didn't have the original.
> ...
> If the model can encode the copyrighted material with sufficient fidelity to reproduce them on command, it stops being fair use or should anyway.
That may be so, IF you could actually do that. Yet in over 200 individual allegations in the Authors Guild vs. Open AI case complaint[1], not a single one of them alleges that you are able to do this. They allege that you could at one point get detailed verbatim quotations, but also note that the models have been explicitly blocked from doing this. Instead, the vast majority of the actual complaints in the case are about generating "summaries" that contain information not in other publicly available summaries, and generating "detailed outlines" of supposed future installments of the copyrighted works, using the characters and details of the story. In other words, all the actual alleged infringements are about either:
A) the copies made in order to train the model
B) infringing derivative works generated by prompting the AI
C) the verbatim copies made from sources to which OpenAI did not have rights to
You would think if any of the authors at all had been able to print out verbatim copies of their works without having to take knowing and direct action to circumvent the blocks in place to prevent that from happening, those would have been some of the top complaints in the case. The same held true for Bartz vs. Anthropic, where the judge even noted in his ruling that while generating verbatim copies might indeed be infringement, the plaintiffs never alleged that had happened or was possible.
And since Bartz vs. Anthropic has (reasonably IMO) found the training to be sufficiently transformative as to be fair use, the complaints for point A are unlikely to succeed here. The complaints for C almost certainly will succeed, for the same reasons they succeeded against Anthropic.
That leaves B. The questions would be:
1) Are such "detailed" summaries infringing just because they can include things other summaries have yet to include? Personally, I doubt they're going to get much traction here unless the courts split and they win on point A. The fact that other summarizers have left certain details out does not inherently make a new summary with other details an infringing work. If we imagine a world where Empire Strikes Back is a new movie, if none of the public reviews of the movie reveal the twist, but you can ask an AI model to summarize the movie and the AI model reveals the twist, that might be disappointing, but I don't think there's any argument to be made that it is copyright infringement.
2) Are speculative outlines of future unpublished work based on the information in a published work infringing just because they have been created?Is a model that CAN be used by a user to intentionally create an infringing derivative work itself an infringing product? Again without splitting the courts and winning on "training is infringing therefore all outputs are also infringing" I just don't see how they can win here. A speculative outline of future works is something people have been doing forever (see also any fan site on the internet). While attempting to publish that outline commercially or produce a new work from that outline might itself be infringement, that infringement is the result of explicit and knowing actions of the user akin to putting a book on a xerox machine and producing a cut and paste fan edit from the work. Again the xerox machine is not itself the infringement, and the individual page copies probably are also not infringement until they are used in a specifically infringing way.
3) Does the ability of the model to theoretically produce verbatim copies of the training material if OpenAI were to re-program the model to remove the blocks they have put in place to do that mean the models are themselves infringing. This is perhaps the most "up in the air" question of the 3, but the law generally doesn't award damages on the potential for copyright infringement, only on actual acts of infringement. Handbrake and various DVD copying tools do not ship with the keys necessary to defeat the DVD protection schemes, yet they know how to use those keys and accept such keys provided by the users. As far as I know, no court cases have been brought or succeeded against any distributors of DVD ripping software despite the fact that evading the "anti-infringement" blocks in the software is both trivial and exposed to the end user. Given that evading the "anti-infringement" blocks of OpenAI's models is neither trivial nor exposed to the end user, I'm fairly comfortable saying that again without splitting the courts and winning on point A, the authors guild isn't likely to win here either.
Please provide me an example prompt to do so or some algorithm to extract from the weights for an open source model. I will accept any copyrighted work, any model.
On what planet is it similar? The labs are taking the copyrighted material and attempting to make billions of dollars from it. And this, in your mind, is "similar" to me downloading a TV show simply to watch it?
There's an argument to be made that you downloading a TV show to watch it is actually worse than what the AI companies are doing. The purpose of making the TV show is to make an entertaining product that people will pay money for in some fashion in order to watch the show. There is no reasonable belief that your act of piracy could ever be a "fair use" of the material. The "social contract" as it were is that if you watch the show, you pay.
By comparison, the model isn't "watching" the show, as so many people are quick to point out that the "learning" analogy for what AIs are doing is flawed. There was never an intent by the creators that the show would be used to generate mathematical probabilities and weights in a statistical model and no one is deriving entertainment from making the statistical model. I suppose perhaps someone derives entertainment from AI training, but I suspect the number is small enough that "no one" is a reasonable approximation. So using the show to do so at least has an argument towards fair use. Or if the copy used for training was legally purchased, at least in the US it has the actual legal designation as fair use so far.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should be returning to the days of the RIAA suing teenagers for their college education funds. But it seems pretty obvious that "pirating copyrighted material to explicitly use that material in the way that the creators of the material envisioned selling to you" is similar to, but arguably worse than "using copyrighted material (pirated or not) in a way not envisioned by the creator of that material to create a wholly different product". In both cases, the livelihood of the creator is possibly being affected, but one of them is a direct 1 for 1 loss of income while the other (again, if not specifically pirated) is an indirect impact.
Once upon a time, copyright infringement for personal use was barely a crime, while copyright infringement by a for-profit commercial enterprise was a serious matter.
The idea being (before the rise of online peer-to-peer piracy) to prosecute the people making bootleg VHSes rather than the people buying them.
With the rise of these AI behemoths, it seems that rule is now inverted: You can download all the pirated ebooks you want, as long as it's for large-scale for-profit commercial use.
It wasn't a crime at all. It was a civil matter. Over the last forty years it has been criminalized around much of the world under pressure from the USA.
> You can download all the pirated ebooks you want, as long as it's for large-scale for-profit commercial use.
It's literally the opposite. Anthropic paid a $1.5 billion settlement. Litigation against OpenAi is still ongoing. Meanwhile, no one has ever been punished just for consuming pirated media.
Oh boy 1.5 billion, that is almost as much as the cost of the cardboard boxes that their GPUs ship in!! Surely this will make a substantial difference and prevent any future occurrence of this crime.
It would be shocking and outrageous if this was a case of this being 'the cost of doing business' for the big guy and a life-ending judgement for the little guy. Luckily our justice system is clearly allowing individual citizens the pleasure and honor of eating cake.
1.5 billion is an order of magnitude less than what Anthropic just had bought the books in question. And like I said it's infinitely more than what any private has ever paid for doing the same thing.
Even if AI companies were literally doing the exact same thing as Aaron Swartz but not getting punished for it, that still doesn't make Swartz's punishment retroactively their fault. If you have a problem with powerful people being powerful, then I suggest you direct your complaints to the heavens.
Skyy93 · · focus · HN ↗
"sketchy russian website", how about using some more clear description like: A library for sharing books and articles that should be partly public domain because they were paid for by the public. Only some of the material is copyrighted by authors. However, some of their work is so old that it is not reprinted anyway.
But of course such an explanation would not click.
I also don't see a problem with statements about making people jobless. Imagine if every robotic or automation company advertised like this: Yeah, you'll buy tons of expensive robots and still rely on expensive labor from real people without any efficiency gains.
quaintdev · · focus · HN ↗
TeMPOraL · · focus · HN ↗
Why are you turning him into perpetuum mobile in his grave?
Do you really believe Aaron would be arguing against AI companies and for publishing / recording guilds on the grounds of intellectual property claims?
No, it's the tech community that did a sudden about-face, and is now all "friendship ended with free access to information and technologies enabling people; now RIAA is my best friend", and this move is as dumb as that meme (<a href="https://imgflip.com/memegenerator/137501417/Friendship-ended" rel="nofollow">https://imgflip.com/memegenerator/137501417/Friendship-ended).
applfanboysbgon · · focus · HN ↗
A: "Information is free"
B: "Information is not free"
C: "Information is free only for the rich and not free for everyone else, giving the rich a material advantage over everyone else that not only entrenches but accelerates wealth inequality and impedes class mobility"
You, or Swartz, are an advocate for A. Why, exactly, do you think that obliges you/Swartz to prefer C over B while A is not true?
simianwords · · focus · HN ↗
applfanboysbgon · · focus · HN ↗
We're literally talking in a thread about someone who committed suicide because the US government was hellbent on ruining his life with a felony conviction for piracy.
roenxi · · focus · HN ↗
As we can see in the good article, the copyright system might almost have cost us a lot of AI capabilities. The damage it has done in cases where the lawyers got ahead of the builders is incalculable.
simianwords · · focus · HN ↗
1. Unauthorised network access
2. Intent to distribute licensed material
The labs aren’t doing this. They are doing something similar to you and I downloading torrents. Look, I also think laws should apply somewhat equally to individuals and companies. But this is different.
applfanboysbgon · · focus · HN ↗
According to the people trying to ruin his life. This is an accused thought crime, not something he actually did. Also, supposing it actually was something he did, your argument is that building a trillion dollar business on stolen licensed material is legally permissible but giving it away for free is worthy of your life being ruined. Wonderfully coherent world view, that is. Piracy is fine, but only if you hoard it to yourself and profit from it!
shakna · · focus · HN ↗
That doesn't seem different to me. Copyright, inherits.
If its fair use, like the companies currently claim, maybe it is different. But I suspect that the insane push to create a copyright carveout in countries around the world, is not unrelated to a judgement that it probably isn't fair use.
consensus1 · · focus · HN ↗
echoangle · · focus · HN ↗
Song lyrics for example
Eddy_Viscosity2 · · focus · HN ↗
It would be like if I sold you a pizza, but when you opened the box it contained all the source code for the latest GTA. The pizza wasn't copyrighted by anyone, but the what was inside the box was.
tpmoney · · focus · HN ↗
Strong IP advocates have argued for years that devices that can be used to infringe copyright are themselves infringement of copyright. So far that hasn’t held up to court analysis provided that device can be and is also used for non-infringing purposes. Given that so far the courts have found that training an AI model is sufficiently transformative to qualify as fair use, it doesn’t seem likely that distributing a model counts as distributing copyrighted material.
Eddy_Viscosity2 · · focus · HN ↗
>training an AI model is sufficiently transformative to qualify as fair use
This is the key question and that courts have decided this way so far doesn't mean its the correct decision. If the model can encode the copyrighted material with sufficient fidelity to reproduce them on command, it stops being fair use or should anyway.
tpmoney · · focus · HN ↗
> ...
> If the model can encode the copyrighted material with sufficient fidelity to reproduce them on command, it stops being fair use or should anyway.
That may be so, IF you could actually do that. Yet in over 200 individual allegations in the Authors Guild vs. Open AI case complaint[1], not a single one of them alleges that you are able to do this. They allege that you could at one point get detailed verbatim quotations, but also note that the models have been explicitly blocked from doing this. Instead, the vast majority of the actual complaints in the case are about generating "summaries" that contain information not in other publicly available summaries, and generating "detailed outlines" of supposed future installments of the copyrighted works, using the characters and details of the story. In other words, all the actual alleged infringements are about either:
A) the copies made in order to train the model
B) infringing derivative works generated by prompting the AI
C) the verbatim copies made from sources to which OpenAI did not have rights to
You would think if any of the authors at all had been able to print out verbatim copies of their works without having to take knowing and direct action to circumvent the blocks in place to prevent that from happening, those would have been some of the top complaints in the case. The same held true for Bartz vs. Anthropic, where the judge even noted in his ruling that while generating verbatim copies might indeed be infringement, the plaintiffs never alleged that had happened or was possible.
And since Bartz vs. Anthropic has (reasonably IMO) found the training to be sufficiently transformative as to be fair use, the complaints for point A are unlikely to succeed here. The complaints for C almost certainly will succeed, for the same reasons they succeeded against Anthropic.
That leaves B. The questions would be:
1) Are such "detailed" summaries infringing just because they can include things other summaries have yet to include? Personally, I doubt they're going to get much traction here unless the courts split and they win on point A. The fact that other summarizers have left certain details out does not inherently make a new summary with other details an infringing work. If we imagine a world where Empire Strikes Back is a new movie, if none of the public reviews of the movie reveal the twist, but you can ask an AI model to summarize the movie and the AI model reveals the twist, that might be disappointing, but I don't think there's any argument to be made that it is copyright infringement.
2) Are speculative outlines of future unpublished work based on the information in a published work infringing just because they have been created?Is a model that CAN be used by a user to intentionally create an infringing derivative work itself an infringing product? Again without splitting the courts and winning on "training is infringing therefore all outputs are also infringing" I just don't see how they can win here. A speculative outline of future works is something people have been doing forever (see also any fan site on the internet). While attempting to publish that outline commercially or produce a new work from that outline might itself be infringement, that infringement is the result of explicit and knowing actions of the user akin to putting a book on a xerox machine and producing a cut and paste fan edit from the work. Again the xerox machine is not itself the infringement, and the individual page copies probably are also not infringement until they are used in a specifically infringing way.
3) Does the ability of the model to theoretically produce verbatim copies of the training material if OpenAI were to re-program the model to remove the blocks they have put in place to do that mean the models are themselves infringing. This is perhaps the most "up in the air" question of the 3, but the law generally doesn't award damages on the potential for copyright infringement, only on actual acts of infringement. Handbrake and various DVD copying tools do not ship with the keys necessary to defeat the DVD protection schemes, yet they know how to use those keys and accept such keys provided by the users. As far as I know, no court cases have been brought or succeeded against any distributors of DVD ripping software despite the fact that evading the "anti-infringement" blocks in the software is both trivial and exposed to the end user. Given that evading the "anti-infringement" blocks of OpenAI's models is neither trivial nor exposed to the end user, I'm fairly comfortable saying that again without splitting the courts and winning on point A, the authors guild isn't likely to win here either.
[1]: <a href="https://authorsguild.org/app/uploads/2023/12/Authors-Guild-OpenAI-Microsoft-Class-Action-Complaint-Dec-2023.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://authorsguild.org/app/uploads/2023/12/Authors-Guild-O...
consensus1 · · focus · HN ↗
Eddy_Viscosity2 · · focus · HN ↗
mtlmtlmtlmtl · · focus · HN ↗
tpmoney · · focus · HN ↗
By comparison, the model isn't "watching" the show, as so many people are quick to point out that the "learning" analogy for what AIs are doing is flawed. There was never an intent by the creators that the show would be used to generate mathematical probabilities and weights in a statistical model and no one is deriving entertainment from making the statistical model. I suppose perhaps someone derives entertainment from AI training, but I suspect the number is small enough that "no one" is a reasonable approximation. So using the show to do so at least has an argument towards fair use. Or if the copy used for training was legally purchased, at least in the US it has the actual legal designation as fair use so far.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that we should be returning to the days of the RIAA suing teenagers for their college education funds. But it seems pretty obvious that "pirating copyrighted material to explicitly use that material in the way that the creators of the material envisioned selling to you" is similar to, but arguably worse than "using copyrighted material (pirated or not) in a way not envisioned by the creator of that material to create a wholly different product". In both cases, the livelihood of the creator is possibly being affected, but one of them is a direct 1 for 1 loss of income while the other (again, if not specifically pirated) is an indirect impact.
michaelt · · focus · HN ↗
The idea being (before the rise of online peer-to-peer piracy) to prosecute the people making bootleg VHSes rather than the people buying them.
With the rise of these AI behemoths, it seems that rule is now inverted: You can download all the pirated ebooks you want, as long as it's for large-scale for-profit commercial use.
consensus1 · · focus · HN ↗
masfuerte · · focus · HN ↗
Aunche · · focus · HN ↗
It's literally the opposite. Anthropic paid a $1.5 billion settlement. Litigation against OpenAi is still ongoing. Meanwhile, no one has ever been punished just for consuming pirated media.
idiotsecant · · focus · HN ↗
It would be shocking and outrageous if this was a case of this being 'the cost of doing business' for the big guy and a life-ending judgement for the little guy. Luckily our justice system is clearly allowing individual citizens the pleasure and honor of eating cake.
Aunche · · focus · HN ↗
Even if AI companies were literally doing the exact same thing as Aaron Swartz but not getting punished for it, that still doesn't make Swartz's punishment retroactively their fault. If you have a problem with powerful people being powerful, then I suggest you direct your complaints to the heavens.
cgio · · focus · HN ↗
Aunche · · focus · HN ↗