| ▲ | 0xcde4c3db 9 hours ago |
| The claim that's being allowed to proceed is under 17 USC 1202, which is about stripping metadata like the title and author. Not exactly "core copyright violation". Am I missing something? |
|
| ▲ | anamexis 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I read the headline as the copyright violation claim being core to the lawsuit. |
| |
| ▲ | H8crilA 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | The plaintiffs focused on exactly this part - removal of metadata - probably because it's the most likely to hold in courts. One judge remarked on it pretty explicitly, saying that it's just a proxy topic for the real issue of the usage of copyrighted material in model training. I.e., it's some legalese trick, but "everyone knows" what's really at stake. |
|
|
| ▲ | Kon-Peki 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Violations of 17 USC 1202 can be punished pretty severely. It's not about just money, either. If, during the trial, the judge thinks that OpenAI is going to be found to be in violation, he can order all of OpenAIs computer equipment be impounded. If OpenAI is found to be in violation, he can then order permanent destruction of the models and OpenAI would have to start over from scratch in a manner that doesn't violate the law. Whether you call that "core" or not, OpenAI cannot afford to lose these parts that are left of this lawsuit. |
| |
| ▲ | zozbot234 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > he can order all of OpenAIs computer equipment be impounded. Arrrrr matey, this is going to be fun. | | |
| ▲ | Kon-Peki 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | People have been complaining about the DMCA for 2+ decades now. I guess it's great if you are on the winning side. But boy does it suck to be on the losing side. | | |
| ▲ | immibis 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | And normal people can't get on the winning side. I'm trying to get Github to DMCA my own repositories, since it blocked my account and therefore I decided it no longer has the right to host them. Same with Stack Exchange. GitHub's ignored me so far, and Stack Exchange explicitly said no (then I sent them an even broader legal request under GDPR) | | |
| ▲ | ralph84 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | When you uploaded your code to GitHub you granted them a license to host it. You can’t use DMCA against someone who’s operating within the parameters of the license you granted them. | | |
| ▲ | tremon 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Their stance is that GitHub revoked that license by blocking their account. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | immibis 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It won't happen. Judges only order that punishment for the little guys. |
| |
| ▲ | nickpsecurity 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | “ If OpenAI is found to be in violation, he can then order permanent destruction of the models and OpenAI would have to start over from scratch in a manner that doesn't violate the law.” That is exactly why I suggested companies train some models on public domain and licensed data. That risk disappears or is very minimal. They could also be used for code and synthetic data generation without legal issues on the outputs. | | |
| ▲ | jsheard 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That's what Adobe and Getty Images are doing with their image generation models, both are exclusively using their own licensed stock image libraries so they (and their users) are on pretty safe ground. | | | |
| ▲ | 3pt14159 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The problem is that you don't get the same quality of data if you go about it that way. I love ChatGPT and I understand that we're figuring out this new media landscape but I really hope it doesn't turn out to neuter the models. The models are really well done. | | |
| ▲ | nickpsecurity 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If I steal money, I can get way more done than I do now by earning it legally. Yet, you won’t see me regularly dismissing legitimate jobs by posting comparisons to what my numbers would look like if stealing I.P.. We must start with moral and legal behavior. Within that, we look at what opportunities we have. Then, we pick the best ones. Those we can’t have are a side effect of the tradeoffs we’ve made (or tolerated) in our system. | |
| ▲ | tremon 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That is OpenAI's problem, not their victims'. |
|
| |
| ▲ | sieabahlpark 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| ▲ | CaptainFever 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Also, is there really any benefit to stripping author metadata? Was it basically a preprocessing step? It seems to me that it shouldn't really affect model quality all that much, is it? Also, in the amended complaint: > not to notify ChatGPT users when the responses they received were protected by journalists’ copyrights Wasn't it already quite clear that as long as the articles weren't replicated, it wasn't protected? Or is that still being fought in this case? In the decision: > I agree with Defendants. Plai ntiffs allege that ChatGPT has been trained on "a scrape of most of the internet, " Compl. , 29, which includes massive amounts of information from innumerable sources on almost any given subject. Plaintiffs have nowhere alleged that the
information in their articles is copyrighted, nor could they do so . When a user inputs a question into ChatGPT, ChatGPT synthesizes the relevant information in its repository into an answer. Given the quantity of information contained in the repository, the likelihood that ChatGPT would output plagiarized content from one of Plaintiffs' articles seems remote. And while Plaintiffs provide third-party statistics indicating that an earlier version of ChatGPT generated responses containing signifi cant amounts of pl agiarized content, Compl. ~ 5, Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that there is a " substantial risk" that the current version of ChatGPT will generate a response plagiarizing one of Plaintiffs' articles. |
| |
| ▲ | freejazz 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Also, is there really any benefit to stripping author metadata? Was it basically a preprocessing step? Have you read 1202? It's all about hiding your infringement. |
|
