News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Is Copyright Eating AI?. Parent comment

Re:Is Copyright Eating AI? by alpaca128 on Sunday January 22, 2023 @06:58AM (#34476518)
> It didn't walk into a bookstore and steal all the books off the shelf, it read through material made available to it entirely legally.

Github ignored the licenses of countless repos and simply took everything posted publicly for training. They didn't care whether it was available to them entirely legally, they just pretended that copyright doesn't exist for them.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Is Copyright Eating AI? by Dylan16807 on Sunday January 22, 2023 @07:20AM (#34476650)
Isn't the definition of public repo that anyone is allowed to download and read it?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Is Copyright Eating AI? by SonicTheSith on Sunday January 22, 2023 @07:49AM (#34476865)
Nope, public repos have license, often open source licenses that state that you can freely use the code, or change it , but only if the resulting product will also be opensource.

Other licenses such as the MIT license require that you name the original creator.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Is Copyright Eating AI? by Dylan16807 on Sunday January 22, 2023 @08:40AM (#34477258)
You don't need to accept that license to download and read the code.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Is Copyright Eating AI? by oneeyedpigeon on Sunday January 22, 2023 @08:35AM (#34477209)
But no license (that I'm aware of) says "You are allowed to read this source code, but you may not produce work as a result of learning from it"; for a start, that would clearly be impractical to enforce.
[ Parent | on HN ]