‹ 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. trompetenaccoun · · focus · HN ↗
          That's not been legally established, the litigation is ongoing. And if mere downloading and reading of copyrighted material were legal, how come torrent users have been fined for it in the thousands?

          The law is the law, there can't be different law for corporations with billions in backing. I don't agree with current copyright laws btw and think they should be changed. However, they probably should have lobbied for that before illegally downloading all this material.

          1. qarl · · focus · HN ↗
            > That's not been legally established

            100% of the rulings agree with me.

            The piracy is not in question. It is unarguably copyright violation.

            But that's not what anyone means in this context. Training is what everyone means.

            > The law is the law, there can't be different law for corporations with billions in backing.

            I didn't say otherwise. That's a straw man.

            1. latexr · · focus · HN ↗
              So, which is it? First you said it was fair use, now you’re saying it’s unarguably copyright violation. You can’t have it both ways.
              1. qarl · · focus · HN ↗
                Training is fair use - the torrenting was infringement. Sorry if that was confusing.
                1. mrdependable · · focus · HN ↗
                  Training has not, in fact, been decided on yet. Of the four criteria deciding whether something is fair use, training only maybe passes two.

                  <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.copyright.gov&#x2F;ai&#x2F;Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.copyright.gov&#x2F;ai&#x2F;Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...

                  1. qarl · · focus · HN ↗

                    [dead]

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.