Technology

37712 readers

230 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

Los@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

193

Report: Potential NYT lawsuit could force OpenAI to wipe ChatGPT and start over (arstechnica.com)

submitted 1 year ago by Powderhorn@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

78 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I agree with the summary of the situation in your first paragraph.

Your second paragraph about sound mimickry, as far as I'm aware, is not accurate. Musicians have been ordered to pay for much less than rote mimickry, even simple things like using the same melody or beat as a backing track have been ruled as infringement. In the US, at least.

And I agree with the 3rd paragraph.

So I believe my original question still stands: should an artificial brain be required to pay licensing fees for everything it sees?

[–] BarryZuckerkorn@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your second paragraph about sound mimickry, as far as I’m aware, is not accurate.

It is. The recording copyright is separate from the musical composition copyright. Here's the statute governing the rights to use a recording:

The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1) and (2) of section 106 do not extend to the making or duplication of another sound recording that consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate those in the copyrighted sound recording.

So if I want to go record a version of "I Will Always Love You" that mimics and is inspired by Whitney Houston's performance, I actually only owe compensation to the owner of the musical composition copyright, Dolly Parton. Even if I manage to make it sound just like Whitney Houston, her estate doesn't hold any rights to anything other than the actual sounds actually captured in that recording.

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

Ahh, TIL, thanks for the explanation.

[–] yum13241@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then explain how Bobby Prince could literally steal a South Park song to make "Shawn's Got the Shotgun" to make Doom 2.

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not familiar with the situation, but I imagine if Southpark went around suing people for using their stuff, people wouldn't take them seriously. Virtually everything in Southpark relies on their abuse of Fair Use. Just because it IS infringement, doesn't mean you have to sue them.

It looks like there are a few other tracks that Bobby Prince is responsible for that made it into Doom. In this interview he states that he made them for fun, labeled the files to not be used in the final game, and was surprised id even had copies. When Romero made the decision to include them in the game, Bobby (who is/was a lawyer apparently) says he was sure they would get sued.

[–] yum13241@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

And they didn't, because back then people didn't abuse Micky Mouse copyright law.

Yes I know about the MIDIs labeled with un, meaning use not. That still doesn't explain Running From Evil, At Dooms Gate, or literally any other song.