4 ms·

I'm allowed to make private copies of copywritten works. I'm not allowed to redistribute them. To what extent this is redistribution is not clear. Is there m

I'm allowed to make private copies of copywritten works. I'm not allowed to redistribute them. To what extent this is redistribution is not clear. Is there much of difference between this model and a machine, like a VCR, that recreates the original work when I press a button?

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
This would be like you intensely studying the copy written work and then writing things based on the knowledge you obtained from that. Except, we don't know if their is an exception for things learned by people vs. things learned by machines, or if the machines are not really learning but copying instead (or if learning is intrinsically a form of copying?).
- pbhjpbhj 3y ago
  In the case of unreleased work, you writing about your knowledge of it is just proof that you obtained the work, which is proof that you committed a tort/trespass. Just like if you published a newspaper article with information you could only have acquired by hacking someone's phone. I'm not sure what a court would find against you, but it seems clear that there would be some way to couch that as a legal grievance.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    Hmm...if I get on the internet and download and read a paper from some website, am I liable if that paper was actually private if I had no clue it was obtained illegally? It seems to me that the distributor would be liable at that point, not the person who got it from the distributor (unless they knew they were stolen goods, then of course they are liable!). A search engine that indexes the internet might be equally liable at that point, although the DCMA gives them an out if they have a mechanism to remove pirated entries from their index on request. Could LLMs have the same out?
- velosol 3y ago
  There's a sci-fi plot there: those with money can afford to pay the copyright cost for material they've learned and anything they produce results in royalties to the creators of everything they've learned. Those without means are cast out, perhaps some generating original thoughts in a way that breaks the system. I think I'm going to have to re-read the Unincorporated Man.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    We aren't so far away from that, and it is becoming cheap enough that you won't even need money anymore. Rather than bootleg movies, people will just ask computers to derive a new movie from multiple existing movies, and then...it is an original work?
WheatMillington 3y ago
It's legal to make a copy of something you own, however it's not legal to make a copy of something illicitly acquired, whether or not there's distribution involved.
- balls187 3y ago
  Companies ofc now circumvent that by selling you licenses, and not something you own.
- jes5199 3y ago
  is there legal jargon for this distinction?
- Scoundreller 3y ago
  It gets kinda dicey in jurisdictions that have media levy taxes. The uploader might be breaking the law but not the downloader that stores the copyrighted material on levy-paid media. I’ve heard inklings of this argument in Canada but can’t figure out what the current state of the art is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing_in_Canada https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing_in_Canada Then is a corporation’s internal use for the purpose of analysis considered “private use”? If there’s no redistribution/broadcasting, is it still non-commercial?
postmodest 3y ago
Is Game of Thrones a redistribution of Lord of the Rings?
permo-w 3y ago
I buy a book and give it to my child, they read the book and later write and sell a story influenced by said book. should that be a copyright infringement? how about they become a therapist and sell access to knowledge from copyrighted books? should that be an infringement? what if they sell access to lectures they've given including facts from said book(s) to millions of people? it's understandable that people feel threatened by these technologies, but to a great degree the work of a successful artist is to understand and meet the desires of an audience. LLMs and image generation tech do not do this. they simply streamline the production of course if you've worked for years to become a graphic designer you're going to be annoyed that an AI can do your job for you, but this is simply what happens when technology moves forward. no one today mourns the loss of scribes to the printing press. the artists in control of their own destiny - i.e. making their own creative decisions - will not, can not, be affected by these models, unless they refuse to adapt to the times
- krisoft 3y ago
  > understand and meet the desires of an audience. LLMs and image generation tech do not do this. For now? I wouldn’t be surprised if that becomes the next feature though.
  - permo-w 3y ago
    that's already been a thing for years. long before LLMs and Stable Diffusion it's just the instagram/tiktok/youtube suggested content algorithms
- milemi 3y ago
  If you found a way to have a million children who could grow up in one day your analogy would be more apt. In that case you and your children would rightly be considered a threat.
  - permo-w 3y ago
    did you read to the third analogy?
JamesBarney 3y ago
This is not definitely not redistribution any more than writing a blog post of a book you read is.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

This would be like you intensely studying the copy written work and then writing things based on the knowledge you obtained from that. Except, we don't know if their is an exception for things learned by people vs. things learned by machines, or if the machines are not really learning but copying instead (or if learning is intrinsically a form of copying?).

pbhjpbhj 3y ago
In the case of unreleased work, you writing about your knowledge of it is just proof that you obtained the work, which is proof that you committed a tort/trespass. Just like if you published a newspaper article with information you could only have acquired by hacking someone's phone. I'm not sure what a court would find against you, but it seems clear that there would be some way to couch that as a legal grievance.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  Hmm...if I get on the internet and download and read a paper from some website, am I liable if that paper was actually private if I had no clue it was obtained illegally? It seems to me that the distributor would be liable at that point, not the person who got it from the distributor (unless they knew they were stolen goods, then of course they are liable!). A search engine that indexes the internet might be equally liable at that point, although the DCMA gives them an out if they have a mechanism to remove pirated entries from their index on request. Could LLMs have the same out?
velosol 3y ago
There's a sci-fi plot there: those with money can afford to pay the copyright cost for material they've learned and anything they produce results in royalties to the creators of everything they've learned. Those without means are cast out, perhaps some generating original thoughts in a way that breaks the system. I think I'm going to have to re-read the Unincorporated Man.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  We aren't so far away from that, and it is becoming cheap enough that you won't even need money anymore. Rather than bootleg movies, people will just ask computers to derive a new movie from multiple existing movies, and then...it is an original work?

WheatMillington 3y ago

It's legal to make a copy of something you own, however it's not legal to make a copy of something illicitly acquired, whether or not there's distribution involved.

balls187 3y ago
Companies ofc now circumvent that by selling you licenses, and not something you own.
jes5199 3y ago
is there legal jargon for this distinction?
Scoundreller 3y ago
It gets kinda dicey in jurisdictions that have media levy taxes. The uploader might be breaking the law but not the downloader that stores the copyrighted material on levy-paid media. I’ve heard inklings of this argument in Canada but can’t figure out what the current state of the art is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing_in_Canada https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing_in_Canada Then is a corporation’s internal use for the purpose of analysis considered “private use”? If there’s no redistribution/broadcasting, is it still non-commercial?

postmodest 3y ago

Is Game of Thrones a redistribution of Lord of the Rings?

permo-w 3y ago

I buy a book and give it to my child, they read the book and later write and sell a story influenced by said book. should that be a copyright infringement? how about they become a therapist and sell access to knowledge from copyrighted books? should that be an infringement? what if they sell access to lectures they've given including facts from said book(s) to millions of people? it's understandable that people feel threatened by these technologies, but to a great degree the work of a successful artist is to understand and meet the desires of an audience. LLMs and image generation tech do not do this. they simply streamline the production of course if you've worked for years to become a graphic designer you're going to be annoyed that an AI can do your job for you, but this is simply what happens when technology moves forward. no one today mourns the loss of scribes to the printing press. the artists in control of their own destiny - i.e. making their own creative decisions - will not, can not, be affected by these models, unless they refuse to adapt to the times

krisoft 3y ago
> understand and meet the desires of an audience. LLMs and image generation tech do not do this. For now? I wouldn’t be surprised if that becomes the next feature though.
- permo-w 3y ago
  that's already been a thing for years. long before LLMs and Stable Diffusion it's just the instagram/tiktok/youtube suggested content algorithms
milemi 3y ago
If you found a way to have a million children who could grow up in one day your analogy would be more apt. In that case you and your children would rightly be considered a threat.
- permo-w 3y ago
  did you read to the third analogy?

JamesBarney 3y ago

This is not definitely not redistribution any more than writing a blog post of a book you read is.