‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Unsealed Briefs in Authors’ Case v. Microsoft/OpenAI

631 points · 623 comments · papergirl

  1. Skyy93 · · focus · HN ↗
    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.

    1. trompetenaccoun · · focus · HN ↗
      It can be a bit confusing due to the terrible style of the article (ironic given the source) but it seems the "sketchy russian website" part is a direct quote by Anthropic's Sam McCandlish. And apparently Dario Amodei referred to it as sketchy as well.

      I find the brazenness of saying this while running what's arguably the largest copyright theft operation in human history astonishing. If libgen is "sketchy", then what is OpenAI?

      1. qarl · · focus · HN ↗
        > the largest copyright theft operation in human history

        Many people think that it was fair use: training is akin to reading, not copying.

        Especially the courts.

        1. zaptheimpaler · · focus · HN ↗
          We have proof that Meta torrented TBs of books off Anna's Archive. They didn't even buy the books legally in the first place. Fair use doesn't magically make piracy legal. The only reason they haven't been punished is the pathetic state of our government and court system.
          1. kenmacd · · focus · HN ↗
            Would you be happy if they bought exactly one copy of each book? That might be a dozen sales between the AI labs, some tens of dollars to the author. Is this really what you're so upset over?

            And the solution to avoid this piracy has been to buy up rare editions of old books, cut them up and scan them. Better?

            1. zaptheimpaler · · focus · HN ↗
              Excusing illegal behavior when it comes from powerful entities creates a moral hazard and over time leads to the kind of amoral and corrupt government and business leaders we have today. There's a pervasive sense in society that money can buy you out of any consequences and morality is basically irrelevant, that's how it happens. It's the same dynamic as SF failing to police minor shoplifting for years, which led to stores closing and metal bars everywhere that we have today.
              1. kenmacd · · focus · HN ↗
                If this is the issue you actually care about then you're in the minority. Most seem to be using it as a proxy for complaining about how the LLM uses the content, not that they didn't pay $10 for the content to start with.
                1. zaptheimpaler · · focus · HN ↗
                  People care about rich and powerful entities being proven to be completely immune to any law or consequences, over and over again. It's a caste system with money. This issue is widespread and is a centerpiece of midterm elections. Calling it a minority view is a convenient way to disengage.
          2. qarl · · focus · HN ↗
            > Fair use doesn't magically make piracy legal.

            Of course it doesn't. No one is arguing that.

            We are arguing the bigger issue of whether training is an infringement.

            > The only reason they haven't been punished

            The reason they haven't been punished is because copyright infringement is not a criminal offense, it's civil. And the labs are settling those cases.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.