‹ 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. quaintdev · · focus · HN ↗
      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?
      1. TeMPOraL · · focus · HN ↗
        > 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&#x27;s the tech community that did a sudden about-face, and is now all &quot;friendship ended with free access to information and technologies enabling people; now RIAA is my best friend&quot;, and this move is as dumb as that meme (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;imgflip.com&#x2F;memegenerator&#x2F;137501417&#x2F;Friendship-ended" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;imgflip.com&#x2F;memegenerator&#x2F;137501417&#x2F;Friendship-ended).

        1. applfanboysbgon · · focus · HN ↗
          Suppose you have three propositions:

          A: &quot;Information is free&quot;

          B: &quot;Information is not free&quot;

          C: &quot;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&quot;

          You, or Swartz, are an advocate for A. Why, exactly, do you think that obliges you&#x2F;Swartz to prefer C over B while A is not true?

          1. simianwords · · focus · HN ↗
            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
            1. applfanboysbgon · · focus · HN ↗
              &gt; It’s not like you will be jailed for pirating movies.

              We&#x27;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.

              1. simianwords · · focus · HN ↗
                His case was materially different

                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.

                1. shakna · · focus · HN ↗
                  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&#x27;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&#x27;t fair use.

                  1. consensus1 · · focus · HN ↗
                    Give me one example of something distributed by OpenAI that is copyrighted by a third party.
                    1. Eddy_Viscosity2 · · focus · HN ↗
                      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&#x27;t copyrighted by anyone, but the what was inside the box was.

                      1. consensus1 · · focus · HN ↗
                        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.
                        1. Eddy_Viscosity2 · · focus · HN ↗
                          You are free to read about exactly this in the NYT lawsuit.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.