![]() |
#1 |
Grand Sorcerer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 7,941
Karma: 70583139
Join Date: Feb 2009
Device: Kobo Clara 2E
|
Penguin Random House, Copyright, AI
"Penguin Random House amends its copyright rules to protect authors from AI"
https://www.engadget.com/ai/penguin-...210436839.html |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Gentleman and scholar
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 11,478
Karma: 111164374
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Space City, Texas
Device: Clara BW; Nook ST w/Glowlight, Paperwhite 3
|
I'm not sure it will do much good and I'm not sure I care about AI being trained (in small part) on novels.
|
![]() |
![]() |
Advert | |
|
![]() |
#3 |
Still reading
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 14,010
Karma: 105092227
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Ireland
Device: All 4 Kinds: epub eink, Kindle, android eink, NxtPaper
|
Either it's already illegal to train "AI" on copyright material (probably is a violation of copyright) and if not, then adding this on a copyright page has no legal weight.
It's less use than the robots.txt that is ignored. Authors care about "AI" being "trained" on novels. Ultimately it's IP theft, plaugarism, but the big companies use misleading language about what they are doing and how their products work. Novels are indeed important to so called AI. They've admitted it but claim they need an exemption. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Wizard
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 3,054
Karma: 18821071
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Sudbury, ON, Canada
Device: PRS-505, PB 902, PRS-T1, PB 623, PB 840, PB 633
|
Our brains are similar in that we also learn by reading, and authors certainly borrow from what they have read when writing. I think the courts are going to have to be careful in how they think about AI training lest they end up lumping in humans with AI and authors get hoist by their own petard.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Grand Sorcerer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 28,568
Karma: 204127028
Join Date: Jan 2010
Device: Nexus 7, Kindle Fire HD
|
I don't think I agree that AI being trained on novels qualifies as IP theft OR plagiarism. I would think the trained algorithms would need to actually produce content that was plagiaristic in nature for it to be such. I don't see much difference (if any) between human writing being influenced by what its authors have read and AI writing being influenced by what human writing it was trained on.
None of which is meant to imply that I'm Ok with AI written content being sold as human written. I just don't believe there's much point in vilifying practices that human writers have utilized for centuries simply because code is doing the same thing. Just like how slapping untested legal theories on the practice probably isn't going to make those novel legal theories stick. If a human writer was convicted of IP theft, would it be because they produced something that was too similar to another copyrighted work, or because they read 500 books similar to one copyrighted work before they wrote theirs? |
![]() |
![]() |
Advert | |
|
![]() |
#6 |
Still reading
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 14,010
Karma: 105092227
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Ireland
Device: All 4 Kinds: epub eink, Kindle, android eink, NxtPaper
|
The code isn't doing the same thing.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Grand Sorcerer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 28,568
Karma: 204127028
Join Date: Jan 2010
Device: Nexus 7, Kindle Fire HD
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
Still reading
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 14,010
Karma: 105092227
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Ireland
Device: All 4 Kinds: epub eink, Kindle, android eink, NxtPaper
|
Quote:
How many years and how many novels have you written? But you can have your opinions, though they don't affect the courts or how valid or useful Penguin's copyright page change is. Most authors, experienced programmers, main stream computer scientists and publishers have a different opinion. Mostly it's people that think SF is a blueprint or hope to make money from AI are the ones that claim we are just meat computers. AI doesn't learn. The computer system is fed data of which the system has zero understanding. It's ultimately pattern matching on copied content, including from pirate sites. Penguin are doing this because there is a problem, and there are two issues: 1) Is Penguin-Random House's copyright notic change worthwhile or pointless? Answers to that are opinions. 2) The real copying that the big outfits promoting AI are doing. If it was another publisher or an individual or a pirate it would be copyright violation, which is a form of IP theft. The AI providers are already being sued and they will only win if they buy off the courts or Government. That's hardly opinion. Claiming it's how human authors work is an opinion that's almost certainly false for most authors. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |
Grand Sorcerer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 28,568
Karma: 204127028
Join Date: Jan 2010
Device: Nexus 7, Kindle Fire HD
|
Your strict etymological and semantic-based (not to mention dogmatic) reasoning is tiring. At some point, the "if it quacks like a duck" principle will apply. Both logically and legally.
Quote:
Last edited by DiapDealer; 10-22-2024 at 08:25 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Gentleman and scholar
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 11,478
Karma: 111164374
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Space City, Texas
Device: Clara BW; Nook ST w/Glowlight, Paperwhite 3
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 | |
Fanatic
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 520
Karma: 8500000
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Hamden, CT
Device: Kindle Paperwhite (11th gen), Scribe, Kindle 4 Touch
|
Quote:
You can't change copyright law just by putting a line of text in your book. It's not a contract signed by both parties...it's a purchase of a physical item, and copyright law is pretty clear about exactly what the purchaser is allowed to do with that physical item. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
Grand Sorcerer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 28,568
Karma: 204127028
Join Date: Jan 2010
Device: Nexus 7, Kindle Fire HD
|
Quote:
Consuming copyrighted novels that are never reproduced, disseminated, nor too closely paraphrased will never rise to the level of copyright infringement, IP theft, or plagiarism in my opinion. Whether they're consumed by code or by humans. The output is what should be legally judged, not the input. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 | |
Still reading
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 14,010
Karma: 105092227
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Ireland
Device: All 4 Kinds: epub eink, Kindle, android eink, NxtPaper
|
Quote:
Also human authors may credit inspiring sources. The AI companies provide a broken search because it's replaying what's been copied and rarely will reveal sources or incorrectly attributes them. It's practically a scam. Also generally humans get a book via legal means. The AI companies are using entire copyright works without any payment to content creators. See https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/...perplexity_ai/ Last edited by Quoth; 10-22-2024 at 12:53 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | |
Still reading
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 14,010
Karma: 105092227
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Ireland
Device: All 4 Kinds: epub eink, Kindle, android eink, NxtPaper
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Wizard
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Posts: 1,897
Karma: 31522252
Join Date: Sep 2017
Device: PW3, Fire HD8 Gen7, Moto G7, Sansa Clip v2, Ruizu X26
|
Unfortunately, the human brain is basically "AI", except without the "A" part (supposedly). What are they going to do next? Ban humans from reading their books because a human might derive an idea from the book?
It's going to be exceptionally difficult to prove an idea came from an individual book. Except for the obvious cases of direct quoting, plagiarism, etc. The entire concept of "genres" ... books grouped together based on similar themes/story lines ... are they going to consider that intellectual theft now? The person who wrote the very first "zombie" book would be very rich by now. It's an artificially constructed character that most likely did not pop up spontaneously in multiple different writers heads. This course of action by Penguin Random House is doomed to fail. It it doesn't, progression of knowledge is doomed to fail. I can't think of anything in our current world that is not built upon something previous. There has to be something new, somewhere, but nothing comes directly to mind. The vast majority of everything is an improvement/variation/step_forward from something that has come before. Even patents that are issued for "new ideas", I can't think of any totally "new ideas" there either. Just a twist of some old idea. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Penguin S&S Random House? | Dazrin | News | 43 | 11-09-2021 06:57 PM |
Penguin Random House Changes Library Lending Model | astrangerhere | News | 26 | 09-19-2018 04:39 PM |
Amazon & Penguin Random House reach deal | AnemicOak | News | 6 | 06-19-2015 01:19 AM |
US DOJ approves Random House / Penguin merger | AnemicOak | News | 26 | 04-05-2013 10:11 PM |
Random House, Penguin May Merge | JoHunt | News | 48 | 10-30-2012 11:46 AM |