|
| ▲ | buran77 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Can you remember every part? Can you do this for every book in a library? Can you remember all that forever? If you just ignore anything that's inconvenient for your argument, you can make any argument you want. |
| |
| ▲ | gruez 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >Can you remember every part? Can you do this for every book in a library? Can you remember all that forever? None of those are relevant factors when it comes to copyright law. You don't get a pass for copyright infringement just because you're not copying the entire work. Same goes for a copy that's transient. You can't set up a bootleg movie theater in your home, even if you delete the movie file afterwards, and there's no trace of the movie aside from the viewers' vague memories. | | |
| ▲ | buran77 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > None of those are relevant factors when it comes to copyright law. And yet they very much are. US copyright law has the concept of "fair use" in 17 U.S. Code § 107 [0]. I'll paste here for your benefit, #3 is the one I referenced as most obvious but #1 and #4 are also very relevant: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Naturally remembering some parts of a legally purchased book verbatim is fair use. "Memorizing" the entire library obtained via torrents and incorporating that in a commercial product that can output all that content doesn't sound like fair use to me.The US justice system is too captured and corrupt at this point to take as reference because decisions there are bought by the highest bidder. But for the purpose of this discussion let's not play dumb for the benefit of trillion dollar corporations. [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 | | |
| ▲ | gruez 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | >And yet they very much are. US copyright law has the concept of "fair use" in 17 U.S. Code § 107 [0]. I'll paste here for your benefit, #3 is the one I referenced as most obvious but #1 and #4 are also very relevant: If you're going to invoke fair use, that opens up a whole can of worms on what counts as transformative. The google books case and the google thumbnails case shows that you can make near verbatim copies of works at scale and still be considered fair use. >The US justice system is too captured and corrupt at this point to take as reference because decisions there are bought by the highest bidder. But for the purpose of this discussion let's not play dumb for the benefit of trillion dollar corporations. This is begging the question. The original question is whether ai companies are getting special treatment. You can't then use that as a premise to say that the courts are tilted towards ai companies. Not to mention it's questionable how ai companies were suddenly able to corrupt all the judges, some of which were appointed decades ago, even though they only got rich a couple of years ago. |
|
| |
| ▲ | mapontosevenths 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Can you remember every part? No, and neither do LLM's. They're trained on vast quantities of data and retain only a fraction of it. You might think of it as very, very lossy compression that generates new outputs rather than the original input unless something unintentional happens. > If you just ignore anything that's inconvenient for your argument, you can make any argument you want. I'm not. I just understand how it actually works. You either don't understand or are deliberately ignoring that what you just said is literally and technically untrue to make some sort of political statement. |
|
|
| ▲ | triceratops 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If you write out the parts or recite them for other people to hear, yes it's copyright infringement. Humans reading or watching copyrighted material isn't considered "making a copy" for the purposes of copyright law. Machines doing so generally is. |
|
| ▲ | bee_rider 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Does the law really not distinguish between mechanical processing of data, and humans learning from it? It seems surprising to be if every person who read a textbook is copyright infringing. It also seems surprising if something like a lossy compression algorithm is enough to protect you from copyright law. Somewhere between the two a line must be drawn… where we’d want to put that line, I guess, if up for quibbling. But it doesn’t seem obvious to me. |
| |
| ▲ | gruez 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >Does the law really not distinguish between mechanical processing of data, and humans learning from it? It seems surprising to be if every person who read a textbook is copyright infringing. It also seems surprising if something like a lossy compression algorithm is enough to protect you from copyright law. The google books and google thumbnails cases have so far upheld that even mechanical reproductions are allowed, depending on the context/usage. | |
| ▲ | mapontosevenths 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | To me the distinction hinges on the output being transformative enough to be considered a new work. I think that most of the time LLM output is. Sometimes they go a bit wonky and overtrain on specific phrases which can result in verbatim copies of brief sections of coontent. Thats a bug, not a feature. |
|
|
| ▲ | lelandfe 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Further, why has my brain's searing remake of Snow White as a gritty murder mystery gone unscathed by Disney lawyers? Surely their negligence has diluted the Snow White trademark! |
|
| ▲ | JsonDemWitOster 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This analogy is disingenuous because by comparing the human brain to the machine, it ignores _scale_. Scale is absolutely important in copyright law. As a matter of fact, copyright law is among the various profound impacts of the---wait for it---printing press, a _machine_ for the mass production of books. |
| |
|
| ▲ | hartbook 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| yes it is if you write it down from memory and sell it. Exactly what LLM companies do |
