Comment by estebarb
3 months ago
However, the lyrics are shown because the user requested them, shouldn't be the user be liable instead? The same way social networks are not liable for content uploaded by users? I think here there is a somewhat double standard.
Of course, maybe OpenAI et al should have get a license before training on the lyrics or to avoid training on copyrighted content. But the first would be expensive and the latter would require them to develop actual intelligence.
Why should the user be liable? They didn't reproduce the copyrighted work and the machine is totally capable of denying output (like it already does for other categories of material).
At the very least, the users being liable instead of OpenAI makes no sense. Like arresting only drug users and not dealers.
There are countries where drug consumption/posesion is penalized too. There is a similar example in other area: For instance, in Sweeden, Norway and Belize selling sex (aka prostitution) is legal, but buying it is not legal. So, your example actually exists in world legislation.
I'm just asking where are we going to put the line and why.
You had originally said the user should be liable instead of OpenAI being liable.
> However, the lyrics are shown because the user requested them, shouldn't be the user be liable instead?
I would imagine the sociological rationale for allowing sex work would not map to a multi-billion-dollar company.
And to add, the social network example doesn't map because the user is producing the content and sharing it with the network. In OpenAI's case, they are creating and distributing copyrighted works.
2 replies →
> However, the lyrics are shown because an action is the user so, shouldn't be the user be liable instead?
Same goes for websites where you can watch piracy streams. "The action is the user pressing play" sounds like it might win you an internet argument, but I'm 99% sure none of the courts will play those games, you as the operator who enabled whatever the user could do ends up liable.
I think that is completely different. Piracy websites do only one thing. Chatbots are different.
My concern is that where are we going to put the line: If I type a copyrighted song in Word is Microsoft liable? If I upload a lyric to ChatGPT and ask it to analyze or translate it, is it a copyright violation?
I totally understand your line of thinking. However, the one I'm suggesting could be applied as well and it has precedents in law (intellectual authors of crimes are punishable, not only the perpetrators).
> I think that is completely different. Piracy websites do only one thing. Chatbots are different.
Well...YouTube is liable for any copyrighted material on their site, and do 'more than one thing'
2 replies →
This is such a bad take.
If that was case then Google wouldn't receive DMCA takedown of piracy links, instead offer up users searching for piracy content. Former is more prevalent than latter because one, it requires invasion of privacy - you have to serve up everyone's search results
two, it requires understanding of intent.
Same is the issue here. OpenAI then needs to share all chats for courts to shift through and second, how to judge intent. If someone asks for a German pop song and OpenAI decides to output Bochum - whose fault is that?