OpenAI could be fined up to $150,000 for each piece of infringing content.
  • BURN@lemmy.worldEnglish
    278·
    1 year ago

    A pen is not a creative work. A creative work is much different than something that’s mass produced.

    Nobody is limiting how people can use their pc. This would be regulations targeted at commercial use and monetization.

    Writers can already do that. Commercial licensing is a thing.

    • lily33@lemm.eeEnglish
      135·
      1 year ago

      Nobody is limiting how people can use their pc. This would be regulations targeted at commercial use and monetization.

      … Google’s proposed Web Integrity API seems like a move in that direction to me.

      But that’s besides the point, I was trying to establish the principle that people who make things shouldn’t be able to impose limitations on how these things are used later on.

      A pen is not a creative work. A creative work is much different than something that’s mass produced.

      Why should that difference matter, in particular when it comes to the principle I mentioned?

      • walrusintraining@lemmy.worldEnglish
        86·
        1 year ago

        It’s not like AI is using works to create something new. Chatgpt is similar to if someone were to buy 10 copies of different books, put them into 1 book as a collection of stories, then mass produce and sell the “new” book. It’s the same thing but much more convoluted.

        Edit: to reply to your main point, people who make things should absolutely be able to impose limitations on how they are used. That’s what copyright is. Someone else made a song, can you freely use that song in your movie since you listened to it once? Not without their permission. You wrote a book, can I buy a copy and then use it to make more copies and sell? Not without your permission.

        • lily33@lemm.eeEnglish
          53·
          1 year ago

          Except it’s not a collection of stories, it’s an amalgamation - and at a very granular level at that. For instance, take the beginning of a sentence from the middle of first book, then switch to a sentence in the 3-rd, then finish with another part of the original sentence. Change some words here and there, add one for good measure (based on some sentence in the 7-th book). Then fix the grammar. All the while, keeping track that there’s some continuity between the sentences you’re stringing together.

          That counts as “new” for me. And a lot of stuff humans do isn’t more original.

          • legion02@lemmy.worldEnglish
            32·
            1 year ago

            The maybe bigger argument against free-reign training is that you’re attributing personal rights to a language model. Also even people aren’t completely free to derive things from memory (legally) which is why clean-room-design is a thing.

      • yokonzo@lemmy.worldEnglish
        33·
        1 year ago

        I can see your argument it’s just your metaphor wasn’t very strong and I think it just made things a bit confusing

      • BURN@lemmy.worldEnglish
        33·
        1 year ago

        Google web integrity is very much different than what I’m proposing. “Nobody” was more in relation to regulating this.

        I hold the opposite opinion in that creatives (I’d almost say individuals only, no companies) own all rights to their work and can impose any limitations they’d like on (edit: commercial) use. Current copyright law doesn’t extend quite that far though.

        A creative work is not a reproduceable quantifiable product. No two are exactly alike until they’re mass produced.

        Your analogy works more with a person rather than a pen, in that why is it ok when a person reads something and uses it as inspiration and not a computer? This comes back around to my argument about transformative works. An AI cannot add anything new, only guess based on historical knowledge. One of the best traits of the human race is our ability to be creative and bring completely new ideas.

        Edit: added in a commercial use specifier after it was pointed out that the rules over individuals would be too restrictive.

        • lily33@lemm.eeEnglish
          21·
          1 year ago

          I hold the opposite opinion in that creatives (I’d almost say individuals only, no companies) own all rights to their work and can impose any limitations they’d like on use. Current copyright law doesn’t extend quite that far though.

          I think that point’s worth discussing by itself - leaving aside the AI - as you wrote it quite general.

          I came up with some examples:

          • Let’s say an author really hates when quotes are taken out of context, and has stipulated that their book must only appear in whole. Do you think I should be able to decorate the interior of my own room with quotes from it?
          • What about an author that insists readers read no more than one chapter per day, to force them to think on the chapter before moving in. Would that be a valid use restriction?
          • If an author wrote a book to critique capitalism - and insists that is its purpose. But when I read the book, I interpreted it very differently, and saw in its pages a very strong argument for capitalism. Should I be able to use said book to make said argument for capitalism?

          Taking your statement at face value - the answers should be: no (I can’t decorate), yes (it’s a valid restriction), and no (I can’t use it to illustrate my argument). But maybe you didn’t mean it quite that strict? What do you think on each example and why?

          • BURN@lemmy.worldEnglish
            11·
            1 year ago

            Fair points. I think the restrictions in most part would have to be in place for commercial use primarily.

            So under your examples

            • Yes, you should. As there’s no commercial usage you’re not profiting off of their work, you’re simply using your copy of it to decorate a personal space

            • If we restrict the copyright protections to only apply to commercial use then this becomes a non-issue. The copyright extends to reproduction (or performance in the case of music) of the work in any kind, but does not extend to complete control over personal usage.

            • Personal interpretation is fine. If you start using that argument in some kind of publication or “performance”, then you end up with fair use being called into question. Quoting, with appropriate attribution is fine, but say you print a chapter of the book, then a chapter of critique. Where is that line drawn? Right now it’s ambiguous at best, downright invisible at most times.

            I appreciate the well thought out response. I hold sting views on copyright of an individuals creative work as a musician and developer, and believe that they should have control over how their products are used to make money. These views probably are a little too restrictive for the general public, and probably won’t ever garner a huge amount of support.

            I dropped the ball on making sure to specify use as in commercial use, I’ll put an edit at the bottom of the op to clarify it too