OpenAI 在与新闻机构的版权诉讼中可能已犯下致命失误

《纽约时报》辩称：

“要么 OpenAI 无意中生成了该数据集，且它被隐藏得如此之深，连 OpenAI 自己都未能在训练审查数据中察觉；要么 OpenAI 明知在之前的生产中埋藏了该数据集，却向法院和新闻原告隐瞒了此事实近两年——与此同时，还极力辩称交出这些日志会侵犯用户隐私。”

此外，新闻原告还指控 OpenAI 有其他阻碍获取证据的不当行为。虽然具体数量被涂黑，但他们声称 OpenAI 随机删除了那有限的两千万条样本中的一部分。更有甚者，OpenAI 还被指控删除或压缩了本应保存的数十亿条日志。据《纽约时报》称，OpenAI 的证人作证说，OpenAI 仅仅是“决定”遵守法院的全面保全令保留所有聊天记录“会很困难；因此没有采取任何措施”。

《纽约时报》还指控：

“毫无疑问，OpenAI 的行为是故意的，其不遵守命令没有任何借口。根据摩纳哥先生的证词，OpenAI 考虑过遵守法院的保全令，但随后决定不遵守。”

“严厉制裁”必不可少

新闻机构声称，他们并非“轻率地”请求对 OpenAI 进行制裁，但 OpenAI 被指控的不当行为“严重性”要求实施制裁，以惩罚这家 AI 公司，并威慑其他 AI 公司效仿类似手法。

原告请求“严厉”制裁，希望法院禁止 OpenAI 使用其极力争取的两千万条样本。他们还请求法院认定被扣留的输出日志中包含“大量”“对新闻原告版权材料的复制”，并阻止 OpenAI 做出相反论证。最后，法院将指示陪审团，OpenAI 删除了数十亿条日志，这将支持新闻原告的叙述，即自案件开始以来，OpenAI 一直以不正当的方式模糊其所谓的市场替代行为。

新闻原告警告称，“较轻的制裁不会奏效”。事实上，“严厉制裁尤为合适”，因为 OpenAI 的不当行为“是明知且故意的”。

如果法院认同 OpenAI 的行为“极其恶劣”，那么 OpenAI 试图限制新闻机构获取日志的做法，最终可能在这场备受关注的版权之争中成为致命失误。训练版权内容是否属于合理使用，很可能取决于新闻机构能否证明市场损害，而如果 OpenAI 被大幅删节的样本遭到拒绝，并使得辩称未发生实质性侵权变得更加困难，其抗辩可能会严重受挫。

“Either OpenAI unintentionally produced the dataset and it was so hidden in the training inspection data that even OpenAI did not realize it, or OpenAI knew it buried the dataset in a previous production, but hid that fact from the Court and News Plaintiffs for nearly two years—all the while vigorously arguing that turning over these logs would violate user privacy,” NYT argued.

Additionally, news plaintiffs accused OpenAI of other misconduct to obstruct access to evidence. Although the exact amount is redacted, OpenAI randomly deleted some parts of that limited 20 million sample, they alleged. And that’s on top of allegedly deleting or compressing billions of logs that should have been preserved. According to NYT, OpenAI’s witness testified that OpenAI simply “decided” that complying with the court’s sweeping preservation order to retain all chats “would be hard; and thus took no steps to do so.”

“There can be no question as to the wilfulness of OpenAI’s conduct, nor any excuse for its non-compliance. According to Mr. Monaco, OpenAI thought about complying with the Court’s Preservation Order, but then decided not to,” NYT alleged.

“Serious sanctions” necessary

News organizations claim that they do not request sanctions against OpenAI “lightly” but that the “severity” of OpenAI’s alleged misconduct requires sanctions to punish the AI firm and deter any other AI firms from following a similar playbook.

Requesting “severe” sanctions, news plaintiffs want the court to prohibit OpenAI from using the 20 million sample that it fought so hard for. They have further asked the court to find that withheld output logs included “substantial” “regurgitation of News Plaintiffs’ copyrighted material” and to block OpenAI from arguing otherwise. Finally, the jury would be instructed that OpenAI deleted billions of logs, which would play into news plaintiffs’ narrative that OpenAI has been moving in shady ways to obscure alleged substitution in the market since the case began.

“Lesser sanctions would not be effective,” news plaintiffs warned. In fact,“serious sanctions are especially appropriate,” they said, because OpenAI’s misconduct “was knowing and intentional.”

If the court agrees that OpenAI’s misconduct was “egregious,” OpenAI’s attempt to constrict news organizations’ access to logs could end up being a fatal misstep in this intently watched copyright fight.

Whether training on copyrighted content is fair use will likely depend on whether news organizations can establish market harms, and OpenAI’s defense could be substantially set back if its massively redacted sample is rejected and if that makes it harder to argue substantial infringement did not occur.