zlacker

[return to "The New York Times is suing OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement"]
1. kbos87+Na[view] [source] 2023-12-27 15:03:43
>>ssgodd+(OP)
Solidly rooting for NYT on this - it’s felt like many creative organizations have been asleep at the wheel while their lunch gets eaten for a second time (the first being at the birth of modern search engines.)

I don’t necessarily fault OpenAI’s decision to initially train their models without entering into licensing agreements - they probably wouldn’t exist and the generative AI revolution may never have happened if they put the horse before the cart. I do think they should quickly course correct at this point and accept the fact that they clearly owe something to the creators of content they are consuming. If they don’t, they are setting themselves up for a bigger loss down the road and leaving the door open for a more established competitor (Google) to do it the right way.

◧◩
2. hacker+1k[view] [source] 2023-12-27 15:56:06
>>kbos87+Na
Doesn't this harm open source ML by adding yet another costly barrier to training models?
◧◩◪
3. onlyre+zl[view] [source] 2023-12-27 16:04:46
>>hacker+1k
It doesn't matter what's good for open source ML.

It matters what is legal and what makes sense.

◧◩◪◨
4. shkkmo+co[view] [source] 2023-12-27 16:20:51
>>onlyre+zl
The law on this does not currently exist. It is in the process of being created by the courts and legistatures.

I personally think that giving copyright holders control over who is legally allowed to view a work that has been made publicly available is a huge step in the wrong direction. One of those reasons is open source, but really that argument applies just as well to making sure that smaller companies have a chance of competing.

I think it makes much more sense to go after the infringing uses of models rather than putting in another barrier that will further advantage the big players in this space.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. jrajav+Wp[view] [source] 2023-12-27 16:29:11
>>shkkmo+co
Copyright holders already have control over who is legally allowed to view a work that has been made publicly available. It's the right to distribution. You don't waive that right when you make your content free to view on a trial basis to visitors to your site, with the intent of getting subscriptions - however easy your terms are to skirt. NYT has the right to remove any of their content at any time, and to bar others from hosting and profiting on the content.
[go to top]