Comment on Square Enix, Bandai, and other Japanese studios demand OpenAI stop using their content without permission, drop a not-too-subtle hint about legal trouble if it doesn't

• riskable@programming.dev ⁨21⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  If you believe AI companies should NOT be allowed to train AI with copyrighted works you should stop using Internet search engines. Because the same rules that allow Google to train their search with everyone’s copyrighted websites are what allow the AI companies to train their models.

  Every day, Google and others download huge swaths of the Internet directly into their servers and nobody bats an eye. An AI company does the same thing and now people say that’s copyright infringement.

  What the fuck! I don’t get it. It’s the exact same thing. Why is an AI company doing that any different‽

  It’d be one thing if people were bitching about just the output of AI models but they’re not. They’re bitching about the ingress step!

  The day we ban ingress of copyrighted works into whatever TF people want is the day the Internet stops working.

  My comment right here is copyrighted. So is yours! I didn’t ask your permission before my Lemmy client downloaded it. I don’t need to ask your permission to use your comment however TF I want until I distribute it. That’s how the law works. That’s how it’s always worked.

  The DMCA also protects the sites that host Lemmy instances from copyright lawsuits. Because without that, they’d be guilty of distribution of copyrighted works without the owner’s permission every damned day.

  People who hate AI are supporting an argument that the movie and music studios made in the 90s: That “downloading is theft.” It is not! In fact, because that is not theft, we’re all able to enjoy the Internet every day.

  Ever since the Berne convention, literally everything is copyrighted. Everything.

  source

  • sanzky@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

    I f you believe AI companies should NOT be allowed to train AI with copyrighted works you should stop using Internet search engines. Because the same rules that allow Google to train their search with everyone’s copyrighted websites are what allow the AI companies to train their models.

    sorry but no. most search bots have been for years quite reasonable in following instructions from the sites on what to scrap and what not. AI scrappers have shown they are willing to go to great lenghts to scrap content against the wishes of the website owners.

    Additionally this scrapping has shown to put a tremendous amount of problems into some sites and platforms, open source projects, for example.

    Last, search engines are a win-win. They get to show ads and then redirect traffic to the source. LLMs for the most part steal that traffic, by regurgitating the same content they stole in the first place.

    source
  • t3rmit3@beehaw.org ⁨20⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Because the same rules that allow Google to train their search with everyone’s copyrighted websites are what allow the AI companies to train their models.

    This is false, by omission. Many of the AI companies have been downloading content through means other than scraping, such as bittorrent, to access and compile copyrighted data that is not publicly scrape-able. That includes Meta, OpenAI, and Google.

    The day we ban ingress of copyrighted works into whatever TF people want is the day the Internet stops working.

    That is also false. Just because you don’t understand the legal distinction between scraping content to summarize in order to direct people to a site, versus scraping content to generate a replacement that obviates the original content, doesn’t mean the law doesn’t understand it.

    My comment right here is copyrighted. So is yours! I didn’t ask your permission before my Lemmy client downloaded it. I don’t need to ask your permission to use your comment however TF I want until I distribute it. That’s how the law works. That’s how it’s always worked.

    The DMCA also protects the sites that host Lemmy instances from copyright lawsuits. Because without that, they’d be guilty of distribution of copyrighted works without the owner’s permission every damned day.

    And none of this matters, because AI companies aren’t just reading content, they’re taking it and using it for commercial purposes.

    Perhaps you are unaware, but (at least in the US) while it is legal for you to view a video on YouTube, if you download it for offline use that would constitute copyright infringement if the owner objects. The video being public does not grant anyone and everyone the right to use it however they wish. Ditto for something like making an mp3 of a song on Spotify using Audacity.

    People who hate AI are supporting an argument that the movie and music studios made in the 90s: That “downloading is theft.” It is not! In fact, because that is not theft, we’re all able to enjoy the Internet every day.

    First off, I do not hate AI, I use it myself (locally-run). My issue is with AI companies using it to generate profit at the expense of the actual creators whose art AI companies are trying to replace (i.e. not directing people to it, like search results).

    Secondly, no one is arguing that it is theft, they are arguing that it is copyright infringement, which is what all of us are also subject to under the DMCA. So we’re actually arguing that AI companies should be held to the same standard that we are.

    Also, note that AI companies have argued in court (in the case brought by Steven King et al) that their use of copyrighted material shouldn’t fall under DMCA at all (i.e. arguing that it’s not about Fair Use), because their argument is that AI training is not the ‘intended use’ of the source material, so this is not eating into that commercial use. That argument leaves copyright infringement liability intact for the rest of us, while solely exempting them from liability. No thanks.

    Luckily, them arguing they’re apart and separate from Fair Use also means that this can be rejected without affecting Fair Use! Double-win!

    source

    • riskable@programming.dev ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Many of the AI companies have been downloading content through means other than scraping, such as bittorrent, to access and compile copyrighted data that is not publicly scrape-able. That includes Meta, OpenAI, and Google.

      Anthropic is the only company to have admitted publicly to doing this. They were sued and settled out of court. Google and OpenAI have had no such accusations as far as I’m aware. Furthermore, Google had the gigantic book scanning project where it was determined in court that the act of scanning as many fucking books as you want is perfectly legal (fair use). Read all about it: en.wikipedia.org/…/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,….

      In late 2013, after the class action status was challenged, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Google, dismissing the lawsuit and affirming the Google Books project met all legal requirements for fair use. The Second Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s summary judgment in October 2015, ruling Google’s “project provides a public service without violating intellectual property law.” The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently denied a petition to hear the case.

      You say:

      That is also false. Just because you don’t understand the legal distinction between scraping content to summarize in order to direct people to a site (there was already a lawsuit against Google that established this, as well as its boundaries), versus scraping content to generate a replacement that obviates the original content, doesn’t mean the law doesn’t understand it.

      There is no such legal distinction. Scraping content is legal no matter WTF you plan to do with it. This has been settled in court many, many times. Here’s some court cases for you to learn the actual legality of scraping and storing of said scraped data:

      • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HiQ_Labs_v._LinkedIn (recent!)
      • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Buren_v._United_States — This one is really relevant because it reaffirmed the concept of, “if you put it on the Internet, anyone can download it; that’s fair use… Regardless of intent”… just because you put up some acceptable use policy that says, “you may not scrape this”—or use it to train AI—is irrelevant. You have to read the full ruling to get all those details though (sorry).
      • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_v._Arriba_Soft_Corp. and en.wikipedia.org/…/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Amazon.com…. ­— These are the big court cases that determined that what search engines do “is transformative” and therefore, fair use. The courts ruled that summarizing (thumbnails or generating text) what you scrape is fair use. By extension, one can assume that what an AI does with the scraped data is the same thing. Remember: At the heart of every AI model is a random number generator. They’re not “plagiarism machines” as many would like to believe. They’re random word prediction engines.
      • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_v._Google,_Inc. — This is the court case that ruled—very specifically!—that caching the entire copyrighted works in your database is perfectly legal.

      To summarize all this: You are 100% wrong. I have cited my sources. I was there (“3000 years ago…”) when all this went down. Pepperidge Farm remembers.

      You say:

      And none of this matters, because AI companies aren’t just reading content, they’re taking it and using it for commercial purposes.

      This is a common misconception of copyright law: Remember Napster? They were sued and argued in court that because users don’t profit from sharing songs with their friends, it is legal. The court rejected this argument: en.wikipedia.org/…/A%26M_Records,_Inc._v._Napster…. See also: en.wikipedia.org/…/Capitol_Records,_Inc._v._Thoma… and en.wikipedia.org/…/Harper_%26_Row_v._Nation_Enter… and en.wikipedia.org/…/American_Geophysical_Union_v._…. where the courts all ruled the same way.

      You say:

      Perhaps you are unaware, but (at least in the US) while it is legal for you to view a video on YouTube, if you download it for offline use that would constitute copyright infringement if the owner objects. The video being public does not grant anyone and everyone the right to use it however they wish. Ditto for something like making an mp3 of a song on Spotify using Audacity.

      Downloading a Youtube video for offline use is legal… Depending on the purpose. This is one of those very, very nuanced areas of copyright law where fair use intersects with the DMCA and also intersects with the CFAA. The DMCA states, “No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.” Since Youtube videos have some technical measures to prevent copying (depending on the resolution and platform!), it is illegal to circumvent them. However, The Librarian of Congress can grant exceptions to this rule and has done so for many situations. For example, archiving (arl.org/…/librarian-of-congress-expands-dmca-exem…) which is just plain wacky, IMHO.

      Regardless, if Youtube didn’t put an anti-circumvention mechanism into their videos it would be perfectly legal to download the videos. Just like it’s legal to record TV shows with a VCR. This was ruled in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios (already cited). There’s no reason why it wouldn’t still apply to Youtube videos. The fact that no one has been sued for doing this since then (that I could find) seems to indicate that this is a very settled thing.

      You say:

      no one is arguing that it is theft, they are arguing that it is copyright infringement, which is what all of us are also subject to under the DMCA. So we’re actually arguing that AI companies should be held to the same standard that we are.

      No. Fuck no. A shittton of people are saying it’s “theft”. Have you been on the Internet recently? LOL! I see it every damned day and I’m sick of it. I repeat myself that, “it’s not theft, it’s copyright infringement” and I get downvoted for “being pedantic”. Like it’s not a very fucking important distinction!

      …but also: What an AI model does isn’t copyright infringement (usually). You ask it to generate an image or some text and it just does what you ask it to do. The fact that it’s possible for it to infringe copyright shouldn’t matter because it’s just a tool like a Xerox machine/copier. It has already been ruled fair use for an AI company to train their models with copyrighted works (great summary of that here: debevoise.com/…/anthropic-and-meta-decisions-on-f… ). Despite these TWO court rulings, people are still saying that training AI models is both “theft” and somehow “illegal”. We’re already past that.

      AI models are terrible copyright violators! Everything they generate—at best—can only ever be, “kinda sorta like” a copyrighted work. You can get closer and closer if you get clever with prompts and tell the model to generate say, 10000 images of the same thing. Then you can look at your prayers to the RNG gods and say, “Aha! Look! This image looks very very similar to Indiana Jones!”

      You say:

      Also, note that AI companies have argued in court (in the case brought by Steven King et al) that their use of copyrighted material shouldn’t fall under DMCA at all (i.e. arguing that it’s not about Fair Use), because their argument is that AI training is not the ‘intended use’ of the source material, so this is not eating into that commercial use. That argument leaves copyright infringement liability intact for the rest of us, while solely exempting them from liability. No thanks.

      Luckily, them arguing they’re apart and separate from Fair Use also means that this can be rejected without affecting Fair Use! Double-win!

      Where TF did you see this? I did some searching and I cannot see anything suggesting that the AI companies have rejected any kind of DMCA protection.

      source

      • t3rmit3@beehaw.org ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Might have to break this into a couple replies. because this is a LOT to work through.

        Anthropic is the only company to have admitted publicly to doing this. They were sued and settled out of court. Google and OpenAI have had no such accusations as far as I’m aware.

        Meta is being sued by several groups over this, including porn companies who caught them torrenting. Their defense has been to claim that the 2,400 videos downloaded to their corporate IP space was done for “personal use”.

        OpenAI is also being accused of pirating books (not scraping), and it has been unable to prove legal procurement of them.

        There is no such legal distinction [scraping for summary use vs scraping for supplanting the original content]. Scraping content is legal no matter WTF you plan to do with it.

        Interestingly, it’s actually Meta’s most recent partial win that explicitly helps disproves this. Apart from just generally ripping into Meta for clearly infringing copyright, the judge wrote (page 3)

        There is certainly no rule that when your use of a protected work is “transformative,” this automatically inoculates you from a claim of copyright infringement. And here, copying the protected works, however transformative, involves the creation of a product with the ability to severely harm the market for the works being copied, and thus severely undermine the incentive for human beings to create. Under the fair use doctrine, harm to the market for the copyrighted work is more important than the purpose for which the copies are made.

        So yes, Fair Use absolutely does take into account market harms.

        What an AI model does isn’t copyright infringement (usually).

        I never asserted this, and I am well aware of the distinction between the copyright infringement which involved the illegal obtainment of copyrighted material, and the AI training. You seem to be bringing a whole host of objections you get from others and applying them to me.

        I think it’s perfectly reasonable to require that AI companies legally acquire a copy of any copyrighted material. Just as it would not be legal for me to torrent a movie even if I wanted to do something transformative with it, AI companies should not be able to do so either.

        source