this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2024
334 points (96.1% liked)

Technology

59605 readers
4225 users here now

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

Our Rules

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

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
334
Microsoft, OpenAI sued for copyright infringement by nonfiction book authors in class action claim (www.cnbc.com)
submitted 10 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
62 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Microsoft, OpenAI sued for copyright infringement by nonfiction book authors in class action claim::The new copyright infringement lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI comes a week after The New York Times filed a similar complaint in New York.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Adanisi@lemmy.zip 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Because sometimes it spits it out verbatim, and sometimes GPLed code gets spat out in the case of Copilot.

See: the time Copilot spat out the Quake inverse square root algorithm, comments and all.

Also, if it's legal to disregard libre/open source licenses for this, then why isn't it legal for me to look at leaked code, which I also do not have permission to use, and use the knowledge gained from that to write something else?

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 4 points 10 months ago

Which is exactly why the output of an AI trained on copyrighted inputs should not be copyrightable. It should not become the private property of whichever company owns the language model. That would be bad for a lot more reasons than the potential for laundering open source code.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world -3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well. That sounds perfectly legal. However, mind that "leaked" implies unauthorized copying and/or a violation of trade secrets. But it's not a given, that looking at such code violates any law.

[–] Adanisi@lemmy.zip 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

And if they're not going to respect the copyleft, they are also performing unauthorised copying.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

"Copyleft" means certain types of copyright licenses. Since these licenses generally allow and encourage public distribution/copying, such code is certainly not leaked. Laws pertaining to trade secrets cannot be involved in principle.

I think the copies made during AI training would be typically allowed under copyleft licenses. In any case, as it is a copyright license, it is subject to the same limitations.

[–] Adanisi@lemmy.zip 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Public distribution and copying is allowed, but only if the license in it's entirety is respected.

And when the license is void, it's all rights reserved, right?

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Sure. Is there a problem with any copyleft license?

[–] Adanisi@lemmy.zip 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

? I'm not sure what your point is

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

You asked?