I, ChatGPT
-
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
And yet others (
) don’t recognize copyright to begin with. They claim to, for international trade reasons, but just laugh at the idea of not copying whatever they like.True
On a different note: in Germany we do have a thing called “Schöpfungshöhe“. That means a minimum amount of creative output required for something to qualify for copyright. If your garbage is just completely uncreative, you don’t get copyright even if it’s your original work.
I'm sure there are differences in details, but the US has something like that, too. The textbook example is a phone book. No matter how much effort you put into it, merely compiling a list is not creative, and the list is not protected by copyright.
-
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
we have no evidence for this, but it’s abundantly clear
Your entire argument in a nutshell!
That’s like saying I can’t prove Google is tracking people. If you think that’s a good argument to make…
You can easily prove Google is tracking people, because we have tangible evidence in the form of cookies.
That doesn’t prove anything in the strict sense of the word. It’s no more evidence than we have that OpenAI has a database.
While cookies exist, Google exhibits behaviors demonstrating that it remembers what I have done in the past. When the cookies are deleted, said behaviors vanish. Such proofs are always subject to the limits of the Problem of Induction, of course, but it's still tangible evidence that you can make, test, and verify, experimental predictions about.
-
@dkf said in I, ChatGPT:
Your other responses to my post's points indicate to me that you're completely failing to engage with the substance of everyone else's arguments.
Oh, you noticed that too, eh? My realization was around the time his record started skipping around something about "learning" for some reason.
I think his instance needs to be reset so we can regain some amount of cohesion.
-
@Gustav said in I, ChatGPT:
@dkf would you have the same problem if they used a Pajeet instead of ML?
Legally, probably yes.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
someone uses a tool to do something bad that can also be done without the tool, then they have done something bad" conveys exactly as much meaning if all mention of the tool is excised, leaving you with a simple tautology. It provides no rational insight whatsoever about the tool itself.
I might actually agree with you. Sort of, but probably not with what you think you're saying. If someone creates an infringing derivative work, it doesn't matter whether they use AI or not, it's still infringing. Using AI doesn't avoid the infringement.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
Where in the world are you getting this from? Please cite the relevant statute.
I have it, said by someone supposedly wise: if it doesn't exist it needs no proof of existence.
-
@Gustav said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
Are you seriously asking me to prove a negative?
I am asking you to prove free service providers are allowed less freedom than paid service providers in what terms and conditions they put around use of their services.
They can write whatever they want, and often do. That doesn't mean the words have any legal force.
A.k.a. that TOS is a joke. For now you only talk about unenforceability of TOS, you haven't linked to any source that it is true. And my own search only yielded that you aren't allowed to put in your TOS 99% of what corporations usually put in their TOS, not that TOS is illegal/unenforceable in itself.
That gets into a deep and convoluted discussion of the finer points of contract law, but if you really want to start down the rabbit hole, look up the concepts of "meeting of the minds" and "leonine contract." The super-oversimplified version is, a contract that is not negotiated with active participation and mutual consent between the two parties has far less validity than one that is.
Do you have any idea at all how a diffusion model works? Or a vector database? These copies you're trying to assert into existence are not there. In any form. At all. What exists in permanent storage are vague things analogous to "ideas and concepts."
No, that's after learning. I'm talking about the database that exists before learning. That the model learns from. That one contains unaltered source works. Unless they keep it all in RAM on a single machine, they must have some sort of storage and redistribution layer in their system. And that's
what's violating copyright.a clear example of transformative fair use, per Author's Guid v. Google, which copyright has no hold on.
Finally, an actual statute!
So now we're back to the same question. Are you familiar with the concept of de minimis copying and its legal implications?
Yes I am. It means fuck all regarding full copies of full works of art.
Which part of the process are you talking about? The ingestion is transformative fair use. The generation is, in practice, virtually always de minimis so the notion of derivative works does not apply.
Mass scraping in violation of TOS is a fact. You cannot deny it's happening, the most you can do is claim (without evidence) that TOS is non-binding.
Burden of proof remains on the accuser.
Are you denying mass scraping is happening? Or that it violates TOS?
Neither. I'm denying that TOS has any relevance.
-
@HardwareGeek said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
someone uses a tool to do something bad that can also be done without the tool, then they have done something bad" conveys exactly as much meaning if all mention of the tool is excised, leaving you with a simple tautology. It provides no rational insight whatsoever about the tool itself.
I might actually agree with you. Sort of, but probably not with what you think you're saying. If someone creates an infringing derivative work, it doesn't matter whether they use AI or not, it's still infringing. Using AI doesn't avoid the infringement.
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying, and furthermore I'm saying that people have been perfectly capable of creating infringing derivative works since long before generative AI ever existed. So "derivative infringing works" is not an AI problem, and given that generative AI is also (and primarily) capable of creating plenty of things that are not derivative infringing works, AI can not legally be considered a tool of infringement. (cf. the famous and massively important Betamax case.)
-
@Gustav said in I, ChatGPT:
Teachers are allowed to do what they do because they are expressly exempt from the normal copyright law (yes, I know, we're back to copyright, sorry). They are exempt from copyright law on the grounds that it's a human right to learn.
Even so, their exemption is not unlimited. Their copying is limited by fair use restrictions such as only small parts of a copyrighted work and only enough copies as needed for their own classrooms.
-
-
@dkf said in I, ChatGPT:
You missed a key clause: "learning by humans is not prohibited".
"By humans" is a prepositional phrase, not a clause.
-
@HardwareGeek said in I, ChatGPT:
@dkf said in I, ChatGPT:
dogs have their priorities and they're not quite the same as humans'.
I don't know. There are a lot of people who would spend all their time eating, sleeping, and sniffing butts if they could.
-
@Gustav said in I, ChatGPT:
It's definitely absurd to charge $200 for it and release a new edition every year with no content changes but most of the chapters shuffled around so that the students are effectively unable to buy used.
No
disappointmentdisagreement (stupid autocarrot) there.But that's just the tip of the iceberg that's the absurdity of US higher education system.
Yeah, there's a whole
thread about that. And even if you're just talking about things like finances, you're absolutely right.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
we have no evidence for this, but it’s abundantly clear
Your entire argument in a nutshell!
That’s like saying I can’t prove Google is tracking people. If you think that’s a good argument to make…
You can easily prove Google is tracking people, because we have tangible evidence in the form of cookies.
Much like we have tangible evidence of potentially copyrighted works in the form of a massive set of parametric data points?
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
By my logic, you can read a calculus textbook without the author's or publisher's consent, because learning. (If a friend gave you access to their book, for example, you could even do so without paying for it, completely free from any legal or moral entanglements!)
Yes, (assuming it wasn't stolen) the publisher gave the purchaser permission to read the book. If the purchaser was a library, they also (presumably, and possibly for an additional fee) gave the purchaser permission to do something typically not allowed by the printed copyright notice, namely lending the book to others. However, the printed copyright notice typically explicitly prohibits certain activities, with language along the lines of "no part of this publication may be reproduced, transmitted, or stored in any information retrieval system" without prior written permission of the publisher. Sometimes it includes words like "by any means now known or invented in the future." That last part certainly includes AI, and that still applies even if it's not stated explicitly.
The fact that reading, for a computer, necessarily requires ephemeral copies is irrelevant.
The copies the AI makes are not ephemeral. They are stored in a lossy encoding we don't understand and can't unencode, but the fact that the AI can unencode that representation to reproduce a somewhat distorted but recognizable copy demonstrates that a persistent copy of some kind exists. And whether you want to call it a copy or a derivative work doesn't matter; both are reserved to the copyright holder or authorized licensee.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
No, I never said that. I said no one has a right to prohibit learning, and I said that anything not prohibited is permitted. There is no need for a specific "right to learn" -- for humans or otherwise -- to exist at all.
So what's the law that prohibits prohibiting learning?
What part of "anything not prohibited is permitted" do you not understand? It is literally that simple. But somehow when people invoke the magic C word, everyone loses their minds!
Everything not explicitly permitted by the copyright owner or fair use is reserved to the copyright owner. What part of copyright law do you not understand? That part, obviously.
-
@HardwareGeek said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
By my logic, you can read a calculus textbook without the author's or publisher's consent, because learning. (If a friend gave you access to their book, for example, you could even do so without paying for it, completely free from any legal or moral entanglements!)
Yes, (assuming it wasn't stolen) the publisher gave the purchaser permission to read the book. If the purchaser was a library, they also (presumably, and possibly for an additional fee) gave the purchaser permission to do something typically not allowed by the printed copyright notice, namely lending the book to others. However, the printed copyright notice typically explicitly prohibits certain activities, with language along the lines of "no part of this publication may be reproduced, transmitted, or stored in any information retrieval system" without prior written permission of the publisher. Sometimes it includes words like "by any means now known or invented in the future." That last part certainly includes AI, and that still applies even if it's not stated explicitly.
Such notices are not worth the paper they're printed on. This was established as far back as 1908. (Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, which established the First Sale Doctrine that nullifies any such notices placing extralegal restrictions on what you can do with property you purchased.)
The fact that reading, for a computer, necessarily requires ephemeral copies is irrelevant.
The copies the AI makes are not ephemeral. They are stored in a lossy encoding we don't understand and can't unencode, but the fact that the AI can unencode that representation to reproduce a somewhat distorted but recognizable copy demonstrates that a persistent copy of some kind exists. And whether you want to call it a copy or a derivative work doesn't matter; both are reserved to the copyright holder or authorized licensee.
You still haven't answered my question about de minimis copying.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
You still haven't answered my question about de minimis copying.
A copy sufficient to create a copy (or derivative work) of the entirety of a copyrighted image is certainly not de minimis.
-
@HardwareGeek said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
No, I never said that. I said no one has a right to prohibit learning, and I said that anything not prohibited is permitted. There is no need for a specific "right to learn" -- for humans or otherwise -- to exist at all.
So what's the law that prohibits prohibiting learning?
What part of "anything not prohibited is permitted" do you not understand? It is literally that simple. But somehow when people invoke the magic C word, everyone loses their minds!
Everything not explicitly permitted by the copyright owner or fair use is reserved to the copyright owner. What part of copyright law do you not understand? That part, obviously.
No. That is not what the law says, no matter how much copyright maximalists may attempt to assert it. Copyright is, necessarily, a very narrow exception to the right of free speech. It grants some very, very specific exclusive rights to copyright owners. All else is free and unrestricted.
-
@HardwareGeek said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
You still haven't answered my question about de minimis copying.
A copy sufficient to create a copy (or derivative work) of the entirety of a copyrighted image is certainly not de minimis.
Which, once again, is neither the intended use case, nor the primary use case. No one is actually doing that other than people with an axe to grind trying to prove that it can be done so they have an excuse to misrepresent generative AI as a copyright infringement mechanism.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla Maliciously sabotaging someone else's business is severely illegal. Nightshade is sabotage in the classic sense, not particularly different from throwing wooden shoes into machinery. Use with extreme caution if you use it at all!
To go back to where the conversation originally started and really the heart of the matter.
I propose that it is well within the rights of a producer of a work to protect it from malicious usage by another party within reason. Yes, this was the original intent of copyright, so at the heart of it it's a copyright issue. Shut the fuck up.
Now, to what extents (duration, implementation, etc) that takes the form of is something to debate, and what protections are used therein (whether it's a "learning" entity or a "isn't human" entity, whatever-the-fuck is irrelevant) necessarily form the basis for legal rulings and whatever.
To the issue of "sabotage", it is entirely within the copyright holder to attempt to prevent dissemination of the work to unauthorized (unlicensed) parties. You wouldn't claim HDCP is sabotage because its' explicit intent is to deliberately prevent usage of digital media, would you? This "nightshade" is effectively the same thing.
I'd much rather see arguments about that than "What is learning" and "what's not forbidden is encouraged!".
*wipes ass on soapbox while stepping down*
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
No one is actually doing that other than people with an axe to grind trying to prove that it can be done so they have an excuse to misrepresent generative AI as a copyright infringement mechanism.
See also: porn deepfakes
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
To the issue of "sabotage", it is entirely within the copyright holder to attempt to prevent dissemination of the work to unauthorized (unlicensed) parties.
I believe in the First Sale Doctrine. Once someone has paid the price you ask to gain your work, you can not restrict what they do with it. (And if you put something up on a public website, and the price you ask is nothing at all, then anyone can trivially meet that price. Deal with it.) The law sets certain baseline restrictions. The First Sale Doctrine says that private parties cannot add further restrictions on top of this. And if I'm going to take a hardcore, absolutist, nuance-free position on anything in the realm of copyright, it will be the First Sale Doctrine.
You wouldn't claim HDCP is sabotage because its' explicit intent is to deliberately prevent usage of digital media, would you?
It's not sabotage per se, but it is a legally bad thing that should not exist, for other, related reasons. If there is one grand, overarching principle to encompass the whole thing, it is that taking the law into one's own hands is virtually always a bad thing.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
No one is actually doing that other than people with an axe to grind trying to prove that it can be done so they have an excuse to misrepresent generative AI as a copyright infringement mechanism.
See also: porn deepfakes
I've seen a pretty persuasive argument that that (and just about anything else people can do with deepfakes that intuitively feels "icky") should be classified as defamation.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
taking the law into one's own hands is virtually always a bad thing.
AND YET....
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
To the issue of "sabotage", it is entirely within the copyright holder to attempt to prevent dissemination of the work to unauthorized (unlicensed) parties.
I believe in the First Sale Doctrine. Once someone has paid the price you ask to gain your work, you can not restrict what they do with it. (And if you put something up on a public website, and the price you ask is nothing at all, then anyone can trivially meet that price. Deal with it.) The law sets certain baseline restrictions. The First Sale Doctrine says that private parties cannot add further restrictions on top of this. And if I'm going to take a hardcore, absolutist, nuance-free position on anything in the realm of copyright, it will be the First Sale Doctrine.
Which is why nobody bats an eye copying books in the library on the whole, and there are no legal ramifications of distributing that content. Yup. Nice world you live in, must be nice.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
Once again, no one is doing that, and no one is complaining about doing that, so who cares?
Everybody that is training a network is doing this, and, yes, people are complaining about it (if nothing else, I'm complaining about it, so your statement is indeed incorrect). This is the core issue; the fact that people are using the trained models to generate potentially infringing stuff is a sideshow.
-
@cvi said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
Once again, no one is doing that, and no one is complaining about doing that, so who cares?
Everybody that is training a network is doing this, and, yes, people are complaining about it (if nothing else, I'm complaining about it, so your statement is indeed incorrect). This is the core issue; the fact that people are using the trained models to generate potentially infringing stuff is a sideshow.
Oh, not another person conflating the input with the output!
We've already been over this: there is no infringement on the input, per the precedent of Author's Guild v. Google.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
To the issue of "sabotage", it is entirely within the copyright holder to attempt to prevent dissemination of the work to unauthorized (unlicensed) parties.
I believe in the First Sale Doctrine. Once someone has paid the price you ask to gain your work, you can not restrict what they do with it. (And if you put something up on a public website, and the price you ask is nothing at all, then anyone can trivially meet that price. Deal with it.) The law sets certain baseline restrictions. The First Sale Doctrine says that private parties cannot add further restrictions on top of this. And if I'm going to take a hardcore, absolutist, nuance-free position on anything in the realm of copyright, it will be the First Sale Doctrine.
Which is why nobody bats an eye copying books in the library on the whole, and there are no legal ramifications of distributing that content. Yup. Nice world you live in, must be nice.
That's covered by "the law sets certain baseline restrictions."
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
To the issue of "sabotage", it is entirely within the copyright holder to attempt to prevent dissemination of the work to unauthorized (unlicensed) parties.
I believe in the First Sale Doctrine. Once someone has paid the price you ask to gain your work, you can not restrict what they do with it. (And if you put something up on a public website, and the price you ask is nothing at all, then anyone can trivially meet that price. Deal with it.) The law sets certain baseline restrictions. The First Sale Doctrine says that private parties cannot add further restrictions on top of this. And if I'm going to take a hardcore, absolutist, nuance-free position on anything in the realm of copyright, it will be the First Sale Doctrine.
Which is why nobody bats an eye copying books in the library on the whole, and there are no legal ramifications of distributing that content. Yup. Nice world you live in, must be nice.
That's covered by "the law sets certain baseline restrictions."
Do those "certain baseline restrictions" include provisions against the use of the work for material or immaterial gain by another party without the consent of the first party for intents known and unknown?
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
We've already been over this: there is no infringement on the input, per the precedent of Author's Guild v. Google.
I would also argue against that. Not all premises from the case hold. Unlike the case, it is possible for the trained networks to reproduce significant portions of the input and it is a significant market substitute. Both of these aspects have been demonstrated multiple times.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
To the issue of "sabotage", it is entirely within the copyright holder to attempt to prevent dissemination of the work to unauthorized (unlicensed) parties.
I believe in the First Sale Doctrine. Once someone has paid the price you ask to gain your work, you can not restrict what they do with it. (And if you put something up on a public website, and the price you ask is nothing at all, then anyone can trivially meet that price. Deal with it.) The law sets certain baseline restrictions. The First Sale Doctrine says that private parties cannot add further restrictions on top of this. And if I'm going to take a hardcore, absolutist, nuance-free position on anything in the realm of copyright, it will be the First Sale Doctrine.
Which is why nobody bats an eye copying books in the library on the whole, and there are no legal ramifications of distributing that content. Yup. Nice world you live in, must be nice.
That's covered by "the law sets certain baseline restrictions."
Do those "certain baseline restrictions" include provisions against the use of the work for material or immaterial gain by another party without the consent of the first party for intents known and unknown?
If they do, it shouldn't be too difficult for you to find and cite the relevant statute.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
To the issue of "sabotage", it is entirely within the copyright holder to attempt to prevent dissemination of the work to unauthorized (unlicensed) parties.
I believe in the First Sale Doctrine. Once someone has paid the price you ask to gain your work, you can not restrict what they do with it. (And if you put something up on a public website, and the price you ask is nothing at all, then anyone can trivially meet that price. Deal with it.) The law sets certain baseline restrictions. The First Sale Doctrine says that private parties cannot add further restrictions on top of this. And if I'm going to take a hardcore, absolutist, nuance-free position on anything in the realm of copyright, it will be the First Sale Doctrine.
Which is why nobody bats an eye copying books in the library on the whole, and there are no legal ramifications of distributing that content. Yup. Nice world you live in, must be nice.
That's covered by "the law sets certain baseline restrictions."
Do those "certain baseline restrictions" include provisions against the use of the work for material or immaterial gain by another party without the consent of the first party for intents known and unknown?
If they do, it shouldn't be too difficult for you to find and cite the relevant statute.
You're right, you should provide supporting evidence. We all agree!
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
No. That is not what the law says, no matter how much copyright maximalists may attempt to assert it. Copyright is, necessarily, a very narrow exception to the right of free speech.
That doesn't even make sense. If it were anything like that, it would be an exception to freedom of the press, not freedom of speech.
But it's not. It's based on Article 1, section 8, clause 8, written long before the First Amendment codified free speech or free press:
The Congress shall have power
...
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; ...It grants some very, very specific exclusive rights to copyright owners. All else is free and unrestricted.
Those very, very specific exclusive rights are very, very broad.
From https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/:
What rights does copyright provide?
U.S. copyright law provides copyright owners with the following exclusive rights:
Reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. Prepare derivative works based upon the work. Distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership or by rental, lease, or lending. Perform the work publicly if it is a literary, musical, dramatic, or choreographic work; a pantomime; or a motion picture or other audiovisual work. Display the work publicly if it is a literary, musical, dramatic, or choreographic work; a pantomime; or a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work. This right also applies to the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work. Perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission if the work is a sound recording.Copyright also provides the owner of copyright the right to authorize others to exercise these exclusive rights, subject to certain statutory limitations.
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
I believe in the First Sale Doctrine. Once someone has paid the price you ask to gain your work, you can not restrict what they do with it.
And you're quite wrong. I can go to a video store and buy a copy of Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back and watch it in my own home. I cannot set up my TV on my front lawn for anyone who walks by to watch without the permission of Lucasfilm (and probably paying them some kind of royalty). I can go into a music store and buy the sheet music of "Let It Be", but I can't sing it publicly without the permission of Paul McCartney or whoever currently owns the copyright (and given the skill with which I would sing it, they'd be entirely justified in withholding permission). I could theoretically, if I had enough money and the current owner was willing to sell it, buy Over the Earth (an arbitrarily chosen sculpture by arbitrarily chosen sculptor Tony Cragg), but I can't put it on public display without Cragg's permission. I can buy a copy of the plays of Sam Shepard, but I can't put on a public performance of any of them without the permission of Shepard's estate (or whoever administers their copyright) and payment of a fee.
First Sale Doctrine gives some rights to the purchaser, but there are limitations to those rights. Resale or other transfer of a tangible work is pretty uncontroversial.
Transformation of that original tangible work into a derivative work has been ruled differently in different Circuit courts. For example, consider buying a painting protected by copyright. I can sell that to someone else without the painter's permission under the first sale doctrine. But instead of selling it, I cut it up and rearrange the pieces into a new piece of art. Clearly, that's a "transformative" derivative work; courts have disagreed as to whether that sort of transformation is prohibited as creating a derivative work or whether it's permitted by the first sale doctrine.
First sale doctrine does not apply to digital works in which the original work is not actually transferred, but a copy is created on the purchaser's device, leaving the original, which may or may not be deleted, on the seller's device. It may or may not apply to software (or other works) that are licensed, not sold; courts look to other language in the license agreement to determine the license is truly a license or is effectively a sale, and they don't necessarily agree with each other.
Section 602(a)(1) grants copyright holders the authority to prohibit unauthorized importation into the US of copyrighted material created abroad; this clashes with the first sale doctrine of reselling legally purchased goods, and courts have been inconsistent in deciding which aspect of copyright law applies.
-
@HardwareGeek said in I, ChatGPT:
courts have been inconsistent
And there the boot drops. "Cite the statute!" does not work when it is not incontrovertible by its very nature.
-
@HardwareGeek said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
No. That is not what the law says, no matter how much copyright maximalists may attempt to assert it. Copyright is, necessarily, a very narrow exception to the right of free speech.
That doesn't even make sense. If it were anything like that, it would be an exception to freedom of the press, not freedom of speech.
Little bit of one, little bit of the other. There's a lot of overlap there. Either way, it's the First Amendment rights that copyright is encroaching upon.
But it's not. It's based on Article 1, section 8, clause 8, written long before the First Amendment codified free speech or free press:
The Congress shall have power
...
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; ...Yes, the Constitution specifies this as something that Congress is able to do. Not something that Congress must do. Meanwhile, the First Amendment says that Congress must not make any law that infringes upon the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.
It grants some very, very specific exclusive rights to copyright owners. All else is free and unrestricted.
Those very, very specific exclusive rights are very, very broad.
From https://www.copyright.gov/what-is-copyright/:
What rights does copyright provide?
U.S. copyright law provides copyright owners with the following exclusive rights:
Reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. Prepare derivative works based upon the work. Distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership or by rental, lease, or lending. Perform the work publicly if it is a literary, musical, dramatic, or choreographic work; a pantomime; or a motion picture or other audiovisual work. Display the work publicly if it is a literary, musical, dramatic, or choreographic work; a pantomime; or a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work. This right also applies to the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work. Perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission if the work is a sound recording.Copyright also provides the owner of copyright the right to authorize others to exercise these exclusive rights, subject to certain statutory limitations.
Yes, it's sad, but true: maximalists have been distorting copyright for a very long time, and they've been ascendant in the halls of power since the 70s, so you end up with really bad takes like that coming from official sources.
And you're quite wrong. I can go to a video store and buy a copy of Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back and watch it in my own home. I cannot set up my TV on my front lawn for anyone who walks by to watch without the permission of Lucasfilm (and probably paying them some kind of royalty). I can go into a music store and buy the sheet music of "Let It Be", but I can't sing it publicly without the permission of Paul McCartney or whoever currently owns the copyright (and given the skill with which I would sing it, they'd be entirely justified in withholding permission). I could theoretically, if I had enough money and the current owner was willing to sell it, buy Over the Earth (a sculpture by Tony Cragg), but I can't put it on public display without Cragg's permission. I can buy a copy of the plays of Sam Shepard, but I can't put on a public performance of Shepard's estate (or whoever administers their copyright).
You're talking about statutory restrictions, which the First Sale Doctrine is silent on. The First Sale Doctrine says that private parties cannot add additional restrictions upon those already specified by the law.
First sale doctrine does not apply to digital works in which the original work is not actually transferred, but a copy is created on the purchaser's device,
It did until Vernor v. Autodesk, a renegade ruling by the 9th Circuit that has never been affirmed anywhere else. Everywhere outside the 9th Circuit, the First Sale Doctrine still applies.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
not incontrovertible by its very nature
That applies to all of copyright law other than direct unauthorized copying, performance or display. "Is work B sufficiently similar to work A that it infringes?" is a questions the courts must necessarily decide on a case by case basis. When two laws conflict, courts must necessarily decide which prevails, at least until a court of sufficiently high authority has set a binding precedent.
-
@HardwareGeek said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
not incontrovertible by its very nature
That applies to all of copyright law other than direct unauthorized copying, performance or display. "Is work B sufficiently similar to work A that it infringes?" is a questions the courts must necessarily decide on a case by case basis. When two laws conflict, courts must necessarily decide which prevails, at least until a court of sufficiently high authority has set a binding precedent.
Exactly. And in the meantime, the rule is "in the case of ambiguous or unclear law, rule in favor of the accused who could reasonably believe he was doing nothing wrong."
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
who could reasonably believe
Would anyone reasonably believe disrupting digital transmission of content on the grounds of potential infringement of as-stated-unenforceable law be considered "wrong"?
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
who could reasonably believe
Would anyone reasonably believe disrupting digital transmission of content on the grounds of potential infringement of as-stated-unenforceable law be considered "wrong"?
Yes, it's very reasonable to believe that. Leave the enforcement of the law to law enforcement!
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
who could reasonably believe
Would anyone reasonably believe disrupting digital transmission of content on the grounds of potential infringement of as-stated-unenforceable law be considered "wrong"?
Yes, it's very reasonable to believe that. Leave the enforcement of the law to law enforcement!
And yet the law does nothing against HDCP. Everyone wins!
-
I believe this thread has descended into the depths of “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
-
@HardwareGeek said in I, ChatGPT:
I believe this thread has descended into the depths of “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
I see you've met @Mason-Wheeler.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
I see you've met @Mason-Wheeler.
And @Mason_Wheeler and @masonwheeler.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
who could reasonably believe
Would anyone reasonably believe disrupting digital transmission of content on the grounds of potential infringement of as-stated-unenforceable law be considered "wrong"?
Yes, it's very reasonable to believe that. Leave the enforcement of the law to law enforcement!
And yet the law does nothing against HDCP. Everyone wins!
Yes, this is because of the DMCA, a legal abomination that should never have existed and urgently needs to be rolled back. If the DMCA were not in place, things like HDCP could not exist.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
who could reasonably believe
Would anyone reasonably believe disrupting digital transmission of content on the grounds of potential infringement of as-stated-unenforceable law be considered "wrong"?
Yes, it's very reasonable to believe that. Leave the enforcement of the law to law enforcement!
And yet the law does nothing against HDCP. Everyone wins!
Yes, this is because of the DMCA, a legal abomination that should never have existed and urgently needs to be rolled back. If the DMCA were not in place, things like HDCP could not exist.
Be the change you want to see in the world!
But in other words: See Copyright.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
who could reasonably believe
Would anyone reasonably believe disrupting digital transmission of content on the grounds of potential infringement of as-stated-unenforceable law be considered "wrong"?
Yes, it's very reasonable to believe that. Leave the enforcement of the law to law enforcement!
And yet the law does nothing against HDCP. Everyone wins!
Yes, this is because of the DMCA, a legal abomination that should never have existed and urgently needs to be rolled back. If the DMCA were not in place, things like HDCP could not exist.
Be the change you want to see in the world!
I've been trying to make the case for DMCA repeal for a long time. People pushing maximalist ideology are really not helping.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
who could reasonably believe
Would anyone reasonably believe disrupting digital transmission of content on the grounds of potential infringement of as-stated-unenforceable law be considered "wrong"?
Yes, it's very reasonable to believe that. Leave the enforcement of the law to law enforcement!
And yet the law does nothing against HDCP. Everyone wins!
Yes, this is because of the DMCA, a legal abomination that should never have existed and urgently needs to be rolled back. If the DMCA were not in place, things like HDCP could not exist.
Be the change you want to see in the world!
I've been trying to make the case for DMCA repeal for a long time. People pushing maximalist ideology are really not helping.
And... so concluding..... ..... .... Come on class, what is the answer?
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@dkf said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
Because consent is irrelevant for learning. Always has been.
But you've not proved that it is learning. "But someone put the label 'learning' on it!" is not proof.
The burden of proof is on the accuser.
Heed your own words. I'll quote you once again:
Maliciously sabotaging someone else's business is severely illegal.
The burden of proof is on you that
a) that business of yours is a legitimate one because "TOS are a joke"
b) I caused you actual, quantifiable harm by employing Nightshade
c) your machine has a "right" to "learn" from my material that overrides my right to publish imagery of any (legal) kind including picture puzzles, illogical perspectives, white-noise-but-not-really autostereograms, and pictures explicitly designed to cause disagreement among viewers about their actual content.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Gustav said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@Gustav said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler I can't keep up with all posts in this thread, most are boring as hell. So apologies for that.
Okay, so if not inherent rights, then what is the reason for treating human learning and machine learning the same?
Because learning is learning, which is something fundamentally different in nature from copying. What other reason is needed?
Some line of thought that ends with "and therefore machine learning should be a protected activity just like human learning is". For humans, it's justified by it being an irrevocable human right. What's the justification for machines?
The rule of law: that which is not prohibited is always permitted. And learning is not prohibited, therefore there is no justification nor consent needed.
Last time I looked, sticking a copyrighted work into a computer in a way that enables this computer to produce an almost-but-not-precisely identical copy of this work was very much prohibited and saying "oh but it just learned that so it's fine" was not an aceptable defense.
Edith
