4 ms·
> So long as that thing doesn't literally copy the data into itself then the training hasn't violated copyright. Could luck proving that hasn't happened. If a
by contravariant 4y ago
> So long as that thing doesn't literally copy the data into itself then the training hasn't violated copyright.
Could luck proving that hasn't happened. If a language model that can reproduce the code verbatim doesn't count then a movie re-encoded into a different format shouldn't count either.
- prepend 4y agoThe movie re-encoded into a different format is perfectly fine if the work is sufficiently different. Taking a file of wolf of Wall Street and encoding it so all the oranges are blue but there’s no other changes is bad as that’s clearly a derived work. Taking the same file and scrambling it so it doesn’t resemble is perfectly fine. Watching the movie and then making your own version of the same exact plot points is infringement. But using plot points that are changed is perfectly fine. There’s existing copyright law that prevents the makers of the movie Deep Impact from suing the makers of Armageddon.
- belorn 4y agoA 420p copy of the movie is very different from a 4k version. Similarly an encryption copy of the file will intentionally not resemble the original in any way. Both of those distinctions would likely be ignored by a court. Similar, a movie that copies the plot points will likely be fine, but a song that copies the notes of a song will not be. Very different cover version will sometimes be found as a derived work, even when they are as different as Deep Impact is to Armageddon.
- numpad0 4y agoI think it’s unproven either ways. Courts ignore definition wars so long both party ignores it too. If you sued me for stealing some cheese, the justice system won’t care if it actually had been cheese or what actually cheese is so long I stick to such insistence that I didn’t do anything wrong up to your accusation.