स्थापित कानून के नई तकनीक से पीछे रहने का मामला 20 january 2024

स्थापित कानून के नई तकनीक से पीछे रहने का मामला

कॉपीराइट उल्लंघन के लिए न्यूयॉर्क टाइम्स द्वारा ओपनएआई और माइक्रोसॉफ्ट पर मुकदमा दायर करने से निस्संदेह एक नई कानूनी सीमा खुल गई है

The New York Times (NYT) sued  / केस करना  OpenAI and Microsoft  

In what could be one of the most important lawsuits of our time, The New York Times (NYT) sued  / केस करना  OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement. 

 The NYT’s lawsuit, alleging that its content was used to train large language models (LLMs) and generative AI (GenAI) systems. If successful, this action might see The NYT receive billions of dollars in damages.

The NYT’s concerns, the counter

The NYT claimed that 

 1 these companies use information from multiple sources to develop AI products. 

2 However, they give The NYT content special emphasis and “seek to free-ride on the Times’s massive investment in journalism” without permission or payment. 

3 This reduces readers’ perceived need to visit the Times website, potentially reducing advertising and subscription revenue.

4 Examples of many ChatGPT and Bing Chat (Copilot) outputs were provided, which were almost verbatim copies of The NYT articles with no attribution.

कई चैटजीपीटी और बिंग चैट (कोपायलट) आउटपुट के उदाहरण प्रदान किए गए, जो बिना किसी आरोप के एनवाईटी लेखों की लगभग शब्दशः प्रतियां थीं।

और भी  कुछ शिकायत 

The Times claimed that although it had contacted these companies, talks to find “an amicable resolution” had come to a standstill. 

The complaint also addressed the problem of AI “hallucinations”, in which incorrect material is mistakenly credited to The Times.

 Furthermore, it wanted that any chatbot models and training data utilising Times copyrighted content be destroyed.

Other cases

unpaid web content  और लोगों की शिकायत 

१ Even earlier, lawsuits were brought against AI services for using unpaid web content scraping. Several authors, including George Martin, Jonathan Franzen, and John Grisham, sued a few GenAI companies, alleging “systematic theft on a mass scale”

२  Philip Pullman and Margaret Atwood 

have signed an open letter demanding payment for the use of their works by AI companies. 

Alleging code misuse in Copilot training, some IT professionals have sued OpenAI, Microsoft, and GitHub. Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt were sued by visual artists for infringement of their copyrights. 

३ Getty Images also sued Stability AI. Universal Music Group urged Spotify and Apple Music to prevent scraping its material to train AI bots to make new songs. And so forth. 

कोर्ट में क्या चल रहा 

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to revive a challenge to Google’s digital library of millions of books seven years ago.

 The Times, however, has drawn comparisons between its move and a copyright lawsuit that dates back more than 20 years against Napster, in which record companies accused the file-sharing service of using their content unlawfully.

the current lawsuit undoubtedly opens up a new legal frontier

It may redefine legal contours around intellectual property rights in the U.S. and establish global precedents at a time when most regulatory frameworks, including those in India, are falling behind. “It is certainly a very important case... We should all stay tuned,” stated Union Minister Rajeev Chandrasekhar.

इस लड़ाई का क्या असर हो सकता है 

१ An epic battle pits push-button information generated by AI against labour-intensive human newsgathering. 

२ The victory of Big Tech might deter human content producers. 

३ GenAI companies might be required to compensate content producers for their use, which would significantly increase the cost of GenAI models.

 

४ Apple has recently floated multi year deals to licence the news story archives for at least $50 million. OpenAI has agreements with Associated Press and Axel Springer for the sharing of their material with ChatGPT.

On Napster

Let us revisit the Napster case

The record companies won; Napster quickly vanished. Even so, the industry has been significantly impacted.

 Publishers such as The NYT certainly recognise they will have to embrace AI as the “future”.

 All they might want is to ensure that their business model is not destroyed and that they receive proper compensation. 

This case may very well be settled out of court; the lawsuit may orchestrate that process. Who knows?

Nevertheless, the resolution of this titanic legal dispute, if done by a court, could significantly shape GenAI’s future worldwide. Data is essential for the training of GenAIs. 

Copyright laws, mostly dating back to the printing press, were not designed to cover LLMs such asChatGPT. Notwithstanding, it is necessary for the courts and/or legislatures to evolve the laws to account for the constantly changing situation.

Source the hindu