Technology

59414 readers

3162 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

836

Meta admits using pirated books to train AI, but won't pay for it (www.techspot.com)

submitted 10 months ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/technology@lemmy.world

165 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

ISPs may block sites to prevent unauthorized copying. It's not a punishment for past wrong-doing. I'm not sure about the details, I think this differs a lot between jurisdictions. But basically, as ISPs they are involved in the unauthorized act of copying. Their servers copy the data to the end user/customer. So, they may be on the hook for infringement themselves if they don't act.

Again, I am not aware of Meta sharing the copyrighted books in question. So, I don't know what the legal basis for blocking Meta would be. If ISPs block a site without a legal basis, they are probably on the hook for breach of contract.

IDK on what basis the sharing of Meta's LLMs could be stopped. If anyone could claim copyright it would be Meta itself and they allow sharing them. (I have doubts if AI models are copyrightable under current US law.)

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/08/technology/openai-new-york-times-lawsuit.html

In its lawsuit Wednesday, the Times accused Microsoft and OpenAI of creating a business model based on “mass copyright infringement,” stating that the companies’ AI systems were “used to create multiple reproductions of The Times’s intellectual property for the purpose of creating the GPT models that exploit and, in many cases, retain large portions of the copyrightable expression contained in those works.”

Publishers are concerned that, with the advent of generative AI chatbots, fewer people will click through to news sites, resulting in shrinking traffic and revenues.

The Times included numerous examples in the suit of instances where GPT-4 produced altered versions of material published by the newspaper.

In one example, the filing shows OpenAI’s software producing almost identical text to a Times article about predatory lending practices in New York City’s taxi industry.

But in OpenAI’s version, GPT-4 excludes a critical piece of context about the sum of money the city made selling taxi medallions and collecting taxes on private sales.

In its suit, the Times said Microsoft and OpenAI’s GPT models “directly compete with Times content.”

If the New York Times' evidence is true (I haven't seen the evidence, so I can't comment on veracity), then you can recreate copyrighted works with LLMs, and as such, they're doing the same thing as the Pirate Bay, distributing copyrighted works without authorization and making money off the venture.

So far, no ISPs are blocking Meta for this.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I expect ISPs would get into a lot of legal trouble if they did.

The NYT sued OpenAI and MS. a) That doesn't involve Meta. b) It's a claim by the NYT.

Why should ISPs deny their paying customers access to Meta sites or sites hosting LLMs released by Meta? These customers have contracts with their service providers. On what grounds, would ISPs be in the right to stop providing these internet services?

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Both Meta and ChatGPT used books3, it's functionally the same type of case.

Why should ISPs deny their paying customers access to Meta sites or sites hosting LLMs released by Meta? These customers have contracts with their service providers. On what grounds, would ISPs be in the right to stop providing these internet services?

In the countries where ISP blocking happens, its usually because a copyright holder has sued and demanded blocking at the ISP level and has won in court. Then, the government begins the path of working with ISPs to block the site.

Unless you think most governments that do this do it arbitrarily? No, they do it because a copyright holder sued, like the New York Times has. The NYT has not demanded ISP-level blocking, but that does not mean that they couldn't. I can't speak to their choice not to do so other than it seems that companies only save that for truly altruistic groups, and rarely do it for other big corporations.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

but that does not mean that they couldn’t.

IDK why you believe this. Breaking contracts is illegal. You get sued and have to pay damages. Some contracts, in some jurisdictions, may allow such arbitrary decisions. In other jurisdictions such clauses may be unenforceable.

altruistic groups

Well, that's not something that copyright law cares about very much. Unfortunately, this community seems very pro-copyright; very Ayn Rand even. You're not likely to get much agreement for any sensible reforms; quite the opposite. I don't think arguing that Meta is doing the same as TPB is going to win anyone over. It's more likely to get people here to call for more onerous and more harmful IP laws.

Both Meta and ChatGPT used books3, it’s functionally the same type of case.

FWIW, no. the NYT case and this is different in some crucial ways.