Comment on Meta admits using pirated books to train AI, but won't pay for it

• SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  So ISPs are blocking Meta because of their breaking copyright?

  Because ISPs block Sci-Hub.

  source

  • General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    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.)

    source

    • SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      nytimes.com/…/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, 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.

      source

      • General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        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?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Meta downloading these books for AI training seems fairly straight-forward fair use to me.

  They pirated the books. Is that not legally relevant?

  source