Technology

59534 readers

3195 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

837

Meta admits using pirated books to train AI, but won't pay for it (www.techspot.com)

submitted 10 months ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/technology@lemmy.world

164 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Both Meta and ChatGPT used books3, it's functionally the same type of case.

Why should ISPs deny their paying customers access to Meta sites or sites hosting LLMs released by Meta? These customers have contracts with their service providers. On what grounds, would ISPs be in the right to stop providing these internet services?

In the countries where ISP blocking happens, its usually because a copyright holder has sued and demanded blocking at the ISP level and has won in court. Then, the government begins the path of working with ISPs to block the site.

Unless you think most governments that do this do it arbitrarily? No, they do it because a copyright holder sued, like the New York Times has. The NYT has not demanded ISP-level blocking, but that does not mean that they couldn't. I can't speak to their choice not to do so other than it seems that companies only save that for truly altruistic groups, and rarely do it for other big corporations.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

but that does not mean that they couldn’t.

IDK why you believe this. Breaking contracts is illegal. You get sued and have to pay damages. Some contracts, in some jurisdictions, may allow such arbitrary decisions. In other jurisdictions such clauses may be unenforceable.

altruistic groups

Well, that's not something that copyright law cares about very much. Unfortunately, this community seems very pro-copyright; very Ayn Rand even. You're not likely to get much agreement for any sensible reforms; quite the opposite. I don't think arguing that Meta is doing the same as TPB is going to win anyone over. It's more likely to get people here to call for more onerous and more harmful IP laws.

Both Meta and ChatGPT used books3, it’s functionally the same type of case.

FWIW, no. the NYT case and this is different in some crucial ways.