Thousands of authors demand payment from AI companies for use of copyrighted works | CNN Business
www.cnn.com
Thousands of published authors are requesting payment from tech companies for the use of their copyrighted works in training artificial intelligence tools, marking the latest intellectual property critique to target AI development.

Thousands of authors demand payment from AI companies for use of copyrighted works::Thousands of published authors are requesting payment from tech companies for the use of their copyrighted works in training artificial intelligence tools, marking the latest intellectual property critique to target AI development.

  • @joeEnglish
    1•1 year ago

    Sorry about the late reply-- I try my best to stay mostly disconnected from the internet on the weekends.

    Literally all intellectual property law concerns how intellectual property may or may not be used and licensed.

    True, but no IP law gives the IP holder the power you’re trying to give them. That is what I’m saying. It would need the law to be changed. There is no aspect of IP law that says that you aren’t allowed to use the text to train anyone, let alone a LLM.

    The training data is what gives the LLM value in the problematic situations so, it is very clear that the material is a key component in the business plan and commercial use.

    This does not matter. If I read a book on Six Sigma business practices and then use that knowledge to better structure my business to increase my profits, I don’t owe the author of the book anything from that. You’re, again, trying very hard to give away your own rights in order to stick it to LLMs. I’m positive IP rights holder would love this new right you want to give them. Perhaps reconsider the implications, though. Simply making money off of the information found in a book does not give the author rights to that money.

    Let me ask you this. If you have a epub of a book on your computer and you select it and press Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V-- have you violated copyright laws? You’ve made a copy, after all.

    • nickwitha_k (he/him)English
      1•1 year ago

      No worries! Definitely important to have healthy relationships with device usage.

      Your statements on rights of IP owners seems to imply that the vast majority of open-source licenses are meaningless. It also seems to be a parallel to the legal cases brought by the family of Henrietta Lacks, who’s cells were cultured without her consent and have been used extensively in research and pharmaceutical development, bringing in significant profits, while neither Ms. Lacks, nor her family saw a dime.

      Not 1:1, as Lacks involves human research and biomedical research but, it certainly rhymes as there is a lack of consent and unshared profits.

      Let me ask you this. If you have a epub of a book on your computer and you select it and press Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V-- have you violated copyright laws? You’ve made a copy, after all

      Depending on the use, possibly. If I intended to sell copies of it, almost definitely. Likewise if I intended to create derivative art that did not fall within the bounds of fair use without attributing credit or license from the holder of the copyright.

      Speaking from an ethical, rather than purely legal perspective, profiting off of training an LLM or similar neural network on someone else’s work, in a manner that competes with the source work, without their permission or giving them a share of the proceeds, is hard to imagine as ethical in any manner that does not involve extraordinary mental gymnastics.

      On the other hand, I would not see anything wrong with doing so for one’s personal enjoyment, if there is no harm done to the IP owner.