3 ms·

If training requires making a copy in memory, then that may be copyright infringement.

python999 3y ago
One way to achieve full defensibility could therefore be to train on a human mimic of the corpus?
prepend 3y ago
Me viewing it with my eyes involved making a copy in my neurons. Or viewing it on my television requires multiple copies as the data moves through wires and tuners and memory and storage. Obviously a video just be copied into RAM to process and display for normal viewing. Why would making a copy in memory to run through a training algorithm be different than an algorithm to encode or decode for display on a screen? I don’t think transmission should count as making copies.
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  A distinction should be made here, you’re not a hard drive which an store perfect copies of information. So it’s not the same thing.
  - prepend 3y ago
    My machine learning system isn’t storing the material. It’s just reading it in and passing it through RAM. It’s different to store material vs stream and process.
    - ChatGTP 3y ago
      if it wasn’t storing some part of it, there’d be no way for it to produce something, it is a form of compression. Even if that’s now a taboo idea.
      - CamperBob2 3y ago
        Compressing a whole song down to the equivalent of two or three bytes and playing it back in an entirely different form should be considered fair use.
- bdowling 3y ago
  Here’s how US law defines “copies”: “Copies” are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. 17 USC 101. There’s no way to look at your brain to perceive, reproduce, or communicate a work that you looked at, so under US law, your neurons are not a copy. As for decoding a video to display it on a television, yes, that process requires making copies. That is why if you don’t have a license to a work, then decoding and displaying it is copyright infringement.

One way to achieve full defensibility could therefore be to train on a human mimic of the corpus?

Me viewing it with my eyes involved making a copy in my neurons. Or viewing it on my television requires multiple copies as the data moves through wires and tuners and memory and storage. Obviously a video just be copied into RAM to process and display for normal viewing. Why would making a copy in memory to run through a training algorithm be different than an algorithm to encode or decode for display on a screen? I don’t think transmission should count as making copies.

ChatGTP 3y ago
A distinction should be made here, you’re not a hard drive which an store perfect copies of information. So it’s not the same thing.
- prepend 3y ago
  My machine learning system isn’t storing the material. It’s just reading it in and passing it through RAM. It’s different to store material vs stream and process.
  - ChatGTP 3y ago
    if it wasn’t storing some part of it, there’d be no way for it to produce something, it is a form of compression. Even if that’s now a taboo idea.
    - CamperBob2 3y ago
      Compressing a whole song down to the equivalent of two or three bytes and playing it back in an entirely different form should be considered fair use.
bdowling 3y ago
Here’s how US law defines “copies”: “Copies” are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. 17 USC 101. There’s no way to look at your brain to perceive, reproduce, or communicate a work that you looked at, so under US law, your neurons are not a copy. As for decoding a video to display it on a television, yes, that process requires making copies. That is why if you don’t have a license to a work, then decoding and displaying it is copyright infringement.