[kelnos]

Feels weird that the Authors Guild so much wants to make public the names of the former OpenAI employees who created the data sets. That seems entirely unnecessary and irrelevant to the case. If what they did was part of their sanctioned work for OpenAI, they are not the ones responsible for how it was used.

[tempest_]

Is "I was just following orders" a viable defense here?

[pointlessone]

It might be. Is it reasonable to assume the material was cleared by leagal department if your manager came and told you to download books from this long list and clean them up for training purposes?

[NikkiA]

Not really no, I've been in that situation and we were all aware that we were committing piracy in the company's name.

[Daviey]

Were you committing a criminal offence or tort, and was it in your personal or corporate capacity?

[NikkiA]

Well, since we were asked to locate material to pirate, which the company intended to sell, it would be criminal, but the criminal act would be the sale of the material, not the procurement of the material, as I read the law.

There might have been a possibility of a claim that we employees asked to download the material were committing a criminal offense under the 'posession with during business with intent to commit and act of infringement', but even there I think it'd be the VPs that had the stupid idea that were committing infringement, not us lowly employees asked to acquire the material.

About the best I suspect CPS could hope for would be a threat as a cudgel to admit who suggested the idea. But I'd have happily told them, and I left the company very shortly after.

[freejazz]

Until OpenAI takes the blame, why would the Author's Guild not pursue their claim?