undefined | Better HN

0 pointsTAForObvReasons3y ago0 comments

At the time the suit was launched, Google search would only display snippet views. The very nature presents the attribution to the user, enabling them to separately obtain a license for the content.

This would be more or less analogous to Copilot linking to lines in repositories. If Copilot was doing that, there wouldn't be much outrage.

The fact that they are producing the entire relevant snippet, without attribution and in a way that does not necessitate referencing the source corpus, suggests the transgression is different. It is further amplified by the fact that the output itself is typically integrated in other copyrighted works.

0 comments

nickelpro3y ago

Attribution is irrelevant in Authors Guild, the books were not released under open source licenses where attribution is sufficient to meeting the licensing terms. Google never sought or obtained licenses from any of the publishers, and the court ruled such a license was not needed as Google's usage of the contents of the books (scanning them to build a product) did not represent a copyright infringement.

Attribution is mentioned in this filing because such attribution would be sufficient to meet the licensing terms for some of the alleged infringements.

It's an irrelevant discussion though, the suit does not make a claim that the training of Copilot was an infringement which is where Authors Guild is a controlling precedent.

couchand3y ago

Attribution goes directly to factors 1, 3, and 4 of the fair use test.

nickelpro3y ago

In some contexts it's used to characterize the purpose of the copying, but it's not a consideration that was made in Authors Guild.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsTAForObvReasons3y ago0 comments

At the time the suit was launched, Google search would only display snippet views. The very nature presents the attribution to the user, enabling them to separately obtain a license for the content.

This would be more or less analogous to Copilot linking to lines in repositories. If Copilot was doing that, there wouldn't be much outrage.

0 comments

nickelpro3y ago

Attribution is mentioned in this filing because such attribution would be sufficient to meet the licensing terms for some of the alleged infringements.

It's an irrelevant discussion though, the suit does not make a claim that the training of Copilot was an infringement which is where Authors Guild is a controlling precedent.

couchand3y ago

Attribution goes directly to factors 1, 3, and 4 of the fair use test.

nickelpro3y ago

In some contexts it's used to characterize the purpose of the copying, but it's not a consideration that was made in Authors Guild.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse