The New York Times sues OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement | CNN Business
edition.cnn.com
The New York Times has sued OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement, alleging that the companies’ artificial intelligence technology illegally copied millions of Times articles to train ChatGPT and other services to provide people with information – technology that now competes with the Times.

The New York Times sues OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement::The New York Times has sued OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement, alleging that the companies’ artificial intelligence technology illegally copied millions of Times articles to train ChatGPT and other services to provide people with information – technology that now competes with the Times.

  • General_Effort@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11·
    11 months ago

    Do machines have a right to fair use?

    Machines do not have rights or obligations. They cannot be held liable to pay damages or be sentenced for crimes. They cannot commit copyright infringement. But I don’t think we’ll see “the machine did it” as a defense in court.

    are works that AI generates is truly transformative?

    Usually they are original and not transformative.

    Transformative implies that there is some infringement going on. Say, you make a cartoon with the recent Mickey Mouse. But instead of making the same kind of cartoon as Disney would, you use MM to criticize the policies of the Disney corporation (like South Park did). That transforms the work.

    Sometimes AI spits out verbatim copies of training data. That is usually transformative. A couple pages of Harry Potter turn into a technical malfunction.

    I hope you’ll answer a question in return:

    Software created by a for-profit privately held company is inherently created to consume data with the explicit purpose of generating monetary value. If that is the specific intent and design then all contributors should be compensated.

    Why? What’s the ethical/moral justification for this?

    I know how anarcho-capitalists, so-called libertarians, and other such ideologies see it, but perhaps you have a different take. These groups are also not necessarily on board with the whole intellectual property concept. So that’s what I am curious about. Full disclosure: I am absolutely not on board with that kind of thinking and am unlikely to be convinced. But I am genuinely interested in learning more.

    • JonEFive@midwest.socialEnglish
      1·
      11 months ago

      Just getting back around to this.

      My main reasoning is simply that authors and artists should be fairly credited and compensated for their work. If I create something and share it on the internet, I don’t necessarily want a company to make money on that thing, especially if they’re making money to my exclusion.

      So while I belive that IP as we know it today is probably not be the best way to handle things, I still think creators should have some say over how their works are used and should receive some reasonable share when their works are used for profit. Without creators, those works wouldn’t exist in the first place.

      Are there other jobs where it would be okay to take a person’s services without paying them? What would motivate people to continue providing those services?

      • General_Effort@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        11 months ago

        Hmm. I think you are missing some important information here.

        I’m sure you know how it goes for most people who create property: EG Factory workers make some product, are paid for it, but do not own the product. The same is true for people who create intellectual property. They get paid for their work but the employer owns the property. You only own what you make in your own time, unless or until you sell it.

        You’re talking about paying property owners for providing no services at all.