OpenAI now tries to hide that ChatGPT was trained on copyrighted books, including J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series::A new research paper laid out ways in which AI developers should try and avoid showing LLMs have been trained on copyrighted material.

  • treefrog@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    31
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you sample someone else’s music and turn around and try to sell it, without first asking permission from the original artist, that’s copyright infringement.

    So, if the same rules apply, as your post suggests, OpenAI is also infringing on copyright.

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      If you sample someone else’s music and turn around and try to sell it, without first asking permission from the original artist, that’s copyright infringement.

      I think you completely and thoroughly do not understand what I’m saying or why I’m saying it. No where did I suggest that I do not understand modern copyright. I’m saying I’m questioning my belief in this extreme interpretation of copyright which is represented by exactly what you just parroted. That this interpretation is both functionally and materially unworkable, but also antithetical to a reasonable understanding of how ideas and communication work.

      • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because in practical terms, writers and artists’ livelihoods are being threatened by AIs who were trained on their work without their consent or compensation. Ultimately the only valid justification for copyright is to enable the career of professional creators who contribute to our culture. We knew how ideas and communication worked when copyright was first created. That is why it’s a limited time protection, a compromise.

        All the philosophical arguments about the nature of ideas and learning, and how much a machine may be like a person don’t change that if anyone dedicates years of their efforts to develop their skills only to be undercut by an AI who was trained on their own works, is an incredibly shitty position to be in.

        • poweruser@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s actually not what copyright is for. Copyright was made to enhance the public culture by promoting the creation of art.

          If these record label types impede public culture then they are antithetical to copyright

        • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          All the philosophical arguments about the nature of ideas and learning, and how much a machine may be like a person don’t change that if anyone dedicates years of their efforts to develop their skills only to be undercut by an AI who was trained on their own works, is an incredibly shitty position to be in.

          So should Dread Zeplin be hauled off to jail because they created derivative works without permission? I mean maybe they should, but not for copyright imo. How about the fan Star Wars movies getting their balls sued off by Disney?

          writers and artists’ livelihoods are being threatened by AIs who were trained on their work without their consent or compensation

          Guess what? The actual copyright owners of the world; those who own tens of thousands or millions of copyrighted works, will be the precise individuals paying for and developing that kind of automation, and in the current legal interpretation of copyright, its their property to do so with. This outrage masturbation the internet is engaged in ignores the current reality of copyright, that its not small makers and artists benefiting from it but billion dollar multinational corporations benefiting from it.

          This is a philosophical argument and an important one: Should we legally constrain the flow and use of ideas because an individuals right to extract profit from an idea.

          I don’t think so.

          • Sheik@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Dread Zeppelin could have been sued. They were just lucky to be liked by Robert Plant.

            As for the Star Wars fan movie, the copyright claim about the music was dropped because it was frivolous. The video creator made a deal with Lucasfilm to use Star Wars copyrighted material, he didn’t just go yolo.

          • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            You are conditioning the rights of artists making derivative works to the rights of systems being used to take advantage of those artists without consent or compensation. Not only those are two different situations but also supporting the latter doesn’t mean supporting the former.

            Like I said somewhere in this discussion, AI are not people. People have rights that tools do not. If you want to argue in favor of parody and fan artists, do that. If you want to speak out again how the current state of copyright makes it so corporations rather than the actual artists gets the rights and profit over the works they create, do that. Leaping in defense of AI is not it.

            • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m challenging the legal precedent of the barrier of creating derivative works in any media, including AI.

          • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            AI is not a person. If you replace it with a person in an analogy, that’s a whole different discussion.

            We actually do restrict how tools can engage with artworks all the time. You know, “don’t take pictures”.

      • treefrog@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s life under capitalism.

        I agree with you in essence (I’ve put a lot of time into a free software game).

        However, people are entitled to the fruits of their labor, and until we learn to leave capitalism behind artists have to protect their work to survive. To eat. To feed their kids. And pay their rent.

        Unless OpenAi is planning to pay out royalties to everyone they stole from, what their doing is illegal and immoral under our current, capitalist paradigm.

        • kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, this is definitely leaning a little too “People shouldn’t pump their own gas because gas attendants need to eat, feed their kids, pay rent” for me.

    • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      A sample is a fundamental part of a song’s output, not just its input. If LLMs are changing the input’s work to a high enough degree is it not protected as a transformative work?

      • treefrog@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        it’s more like a collage of everyone’s words. it doesn’t make anything creative because ot doesn’t have a body or life or real social inputs you could say. basically it’s just rearranging other people’s words.

        A song that’s nothing but samples. but so many samples it hides that fact. this is my view anyway.

        and only a handful of people are getting rich of the outputs.

        if we were in some kinda post capitalism economy or if we had UBI it wouldn’t bother me really. it’s not the artists ego I’m sticking up for, but their livelihood