• Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Title 17 of US Code

    I agree that after a download is complete, a copy has come into existence, and it is located on the downloader’s computer. But, the downloader did not have the work prior to downloading. How can he make a copy of something he does not yet possess? What is the “original” from which this copy came to exist? Who had any obligations under copyright law regarding that original?

    The answer, of course, is that the “original” was located on the uploader’s computer. He is responsible for the actions of that machine. He controls it. He decides to whom to send it. He decides how many people it will be sent to. He is fully and solely responsible for distributing the work in his possession.

    Every prohibited act is performed by the uploader, not the downloader.

    No, Silverman’s argument is not that the mere possession of the work by ChatGPT violates copyright, because yhat question has long since been answered: the artist controls the work, not the audience. The artist cannot decide who is and is not allowed to consume the work. Regardless of how someone came to consume the work, they are fully entitled to speak about it.

    Instead, her argument is that the summaries produced by ChatGPT violate the copyright of her work. She is trying to argue that these summaries are merely derivative works, rather than “transformative derivations”. She’s trying to argue that you can’t summarize her work; that your summary of her work violates her copyright.

    She is wrong.

    • azuth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree that after a download is complete, a copy has come into existence, and it is located on the downloader’s computer. But, the downloader did not have the work prior to downloading. How can he make a copy of something he does not yet possess? What is the “original” from which this copy came to exist? Who had any obligations under copyright law regarding that original?

      Unless you can point where the law says you have to make the copy from a copy you posses it is irrelevant.

      But we do actually have precedent where there was creation of copies out of thin air. VHS recordings of broadcast, Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios. It was actually settled on time-shifted of free-aired material being fair use. Nobody argued that the VCR owners having no copy before recording did not make a copy.

      No, Silverman’s argument is not that the mere possession of the work by ChatGPT violates copyright, because what question has long since been answered: the artist controls the work, not the audience. The artist cannot decide who is and is not allowed to consume the work. Regardless of how someone came to consume the work, they are fully entitled to speak about it.

      I will concede that there are situations where you can just consume copyrighted material without copying them (which downloading is). That would be if you I downloaded a movie and invited you to watch it, or a sports bar showing illegal streams.

      My whole point is that it does not matter if you have committed copyright infringement, you can always make fair use derivative works such as reviews. I could get DVDs from a friend in the 00s and copy them to a my own disc before watching the copy. That would mean I infringed even in your wrong understanding of copyright. If it was worth it and there was evidence of it the copyright owner would be able to successfully sue me for copying them.

      He could correctly argue that me copying the disc, infringing on his copyright, was necessary for me to write a review of his movie, a derivative work. It would not matter.

      I could later make another film that is inspired by the movie whose copyright I infringed upon. If the movie is not too similar it would not be itself infringing. If it too similar it could be infringing but so would a movie made by someone who committed no copyright infringement to be able to watch the original.

      This is what the discussions was about. AI opponents push the idea that if there was copyright infringement on the training process, any output of AI must be infringing or derivative of the original work. Which is bullshit.

      I suppose you are not pro-copyright, same as me, but you are not helping any argument by making claims that are besides the point and wrong.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        But we do actually have precedent where there was creation of copies out of thin air. VHS recordings of broadcast, Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios. It was actually settled on time-shifted of free-aired material being fair use. Nobody argued that the VCR owners having no copy before recording did not make a copy.

        You’re conflating the concept of “recording” with the concept of “copying”. They weren’t making a copy. They were making a recording. As your citation demonstrates, these two concepts are not the same thing.

        Importantly, there is no difference in the legality of recording when we switch from an authorized broadcaster to a pirate transmitter. It is still perfectly lawful to create a recording of what was sent to you.

        Even if you call up the pirate station and ask them to transmit the specific work that you want to receive, the transmitter is still exclusively responsible. Even if you call them up and ask them to retransmit those parts you didn’t receive clearly, the infringement is theirs, not yours. You are free to receive and record whatever someone wants to send you.

        Downloading is recording, not copying. You are receiving and saving the work that is being transmitted to you.

        • azuth@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re conflating the concept of “recording” with the concept of “copying”. They weren’t making a copy. They were making a recording. As your citation demonstrates, these two concepts are not the same thing.

          Fuck off mate, you are full of shit. The concept of recording is so different to copying according to my citation that the recording are made via ‘copying devices’. It’s also immaterial. RECORDINGS could infringe and thus the court therefore examines if the fair use exception applies.

          I will no more argue with you, since you are dishonest.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            They are technologically similar concepts, but there are distinct legal differences. When the act is performed by a single legal entity, it is “copying”. Where the act is performed by two separate legal entities, the receiving entity is “recording”. The transmitting entity is “distributing”.

            RECORDINGS could infringe

            There can certainly be infringement involved in the complete act, but it is committed by the entity distributing the work without permission, not the entity receiving the work.

            Recording could be infringing in certain special circumstances, where the rightsholder controls both the transmission of the work as well as the presence of the receiver. It could be infringement to record inside a theater, for example.

            But they cannot prohibit me from putting up an antenna and recording what I hear; they cannot prohibit me from attaching a computer to a network and recording what is sent to me over that network.