4 ms·

Those are perfectly consistent, despite what ideologically-driven people may want to believe. Copyright is literally the right to copy. Arbitrary Internet data

Those are perfectly consistent, despite what ideologically-driven people may want to believe. Copyright is literally the right to copy. Arbitrary Internet data that is not copied does not have any copyright implications. The difference is that LLaMa imposes additional contractual obligations that, for ideological reasons (Freedom #0), open source software does not. This issue reminds me of the FSF/AGPL situation. At some point you just have to accept that copyright law, in and of itself, is not sufficient to control what people do with your software. If you want to do that, you have to limit end-user freedom with an EULA. If someone uses LLaMa output to train models, it is unlikely they will be sued for copyright infringement. It is far more likely they will be sued for breach of contract.

owenfi 3y ago
But you can publish the output, right? And then a “third party” could train a different model on just that published material without copying it or ever agreeing to a EULA.
- torstenvl 3y ago
  If you believe that courts will find your shell game convincing, you are free to try it and incur the legal risk. I recommend you consult with an attorney before doing so.
  - themoonisachees 3y ago
    You could simply train on the output straight up and nobody would ever be able to tell anyway.
6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago
One of the common elements of training sets for these models (including LLama) is the Books3 dataset, which is a huge number of pirated books from torrents. That's exactly what you described. Regardless, the lack of a license cannot give you more permission than a restrictive license. You're arguing that if take a book out of a bookstore without paying (or signing a contract), then I have more rights than if I sign a contract and then leave with the book.
- torstenvl 3y ago
  > the lack of a license [agreement] cannot give you more permission than a restrictive license [agreement] That is clearly false. It's hard to imagine the confusion of ideas that would lead you to such a conclusion.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
danShumway 3y ago
> Arbitrary Internet data that is not copied does not have any copyright implications. Training a model on model output isn't copying. There's no way to phrase this where training a model on copyrighted human-generated images/text isn't copying, but training a model on computer-generated images/text is copying. > If you want to do that, you have to limit end-user freedom with an EULA. If you want to limit end-user freedom with a EULA, you have to figure out how to get users to sign it. Copyright is one way to force them to do so, but doesn't really seem relevant to this situation if training a model on copyrighted material is fair use. And again, if somebody generates a giant dataset with LLaMA, if you want to argue that pushing that into another LLM to train with is making a copy of that data, then there's no way to get around the implication there that training on a human-generated image is also making a copy of that image.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- torstenvl 3y ago
  > Training a model on model output isn't copying. That's literally what I said. > There's no way to phrase this where training a model on copyrighted human-generated images/text isn't copying, but training a model on computer-generated images/text is copying. Literally nobody is saying that. > If you want to limit end-user freedom with a EULA, you have to figure out how to get users to sign it. That is not true. ProCD v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996). You and others seem to have an over-the-top hostile reaction to the idea that contract law can do things copyright law cannot do. But it is objective and unarguable fact.
  - danShumway 3y ago
    > Literally nobody is saying that. Okay? Apologies for making that assumption. But if you're not saying that, then your position here is even less defensible. Arguing that model output isn't copyrightable but that it's still covered by EULA if anyone anywhere tries to use it is even more absurd than arguing that it's covered by copyright. The interpretation that this is covered by copyright is arguably the charitable interpretation of what you wrote. > That is not true. ProCD v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996). ProCD is about shrinkwrap licenses, the court determined that buying the software and installing it was the equivalent of agreeing to the license. In no way does that imply that licenses are enforceable on people who never agreed to the licenses. The court expanded what counts as agreement, it does not mean you don't have to get people to agree to the EULA. I mean, take pedantic issue with the word "sign" if you want (sure, other types of agreement exist, you're correct), but the basic point is still true -- if you want to restrict people with a EULA, they need to actually agree to the EULA. All that ProCD did was establish that buying a product and opening the package and installing it constituted agreement. And that becomes a problem because if you don't have IP law as a way to block access to your stuff, then you don't really have a way to force people to agree to the EULA. Someone using LLaMA output to train a model may have never been in a position to agree to that EULA, and Facebook doesn't have the legal ability to say "hey, nobody can use output without agreeing to this" because they don't have copyright over that output. Can they get people to sign a EULA before downloading the weights from them? Sure. Is that enough to restrict everyone else who didn't download those weights? No. To go a step further, if you don't believe that weights themselves are copyrightable, then putting a EULA in front of them is even less effective because people can just download the weights from someone else other than Facebook. You can host a project Gutenberg book and get people to sign a EULA before they download it from you, even though you don't own the copyright. And that EULA would be binding, yes. But you cannot host a project Gutenberg book, put a EULA in front of it, and then claim that people who don't download it from you and instead just grab it off of a mirror are still bound by that EULA. Your ability to control access is what gives you the ability to force people to sign the EULA. And that's kind of dependent on IP law. If someone sticks the LLaMA 2.0 weights on a P2P site, and those weights aren't covered by copyright or other IP law, then no, under no interpretation of US law would downloading those weights from a 3rd-party source constitute an agreement with Facebook. But even if you don't take that position, even if you assume that model weights are copyrightable, if I download a dataset generated by LLaMA, there is still no shrinkwrap license on that data. To your original point: > If someone uses LLaMa output to train models, it is unlikely they will be sued for copyright infringement. It is far more likely they will be sued for breach of contract. It is incredibly unlikely that someone using a 3rd-party database of LLaMA output would be found to be in violation of contract law unless at the very least they had actually agreed to the contract by downloading LLaMA themselves. A restriction on the usage of LLaMA does not mean anything for someone who is using LLaMA output but has not taken any action that would imply agreement to that EULA. > You and others seem to have an over-the-top hostile reaction to the idea that contract law can do things copyright law cannot do. But it is objective and unarguable fact. No, what we have a hostile reaction to is the objectively false idea that a EULA covers unrelated 3rd parties. That's not a thing, it's never been a thing. I don't know what to say if you disagree with that other than that I'm putting a EULA in front of all of Shakespeare's works that says you now have to pay me $20 before you use them no matter where you get them from, and apparently that's a thing you believe I can do?
wwweston 3y ago
> Arbitrary Internet data that is not copied It's all but certainly copied, and not just in the "held in memory" sense but actually stored along with the rest of the training collection. What may not happen is distribution. There's a difference in scale/nature of copyright violation between the two but both could well be construed that way. Additionally, I think there's a reasonable argument that use as training data is a novel one that should be treated differently under the law. And if there's not: > If you want to do that, you have to limit end-user freedom with an EULA. What will eventually happen -- at least without some kind of worldwide convention -- is that someone who can successfully dodge licensing obligations will be able to take and redistribute weight-data and/or clean-room code. At least, if we're adopting a "because we can" approach to everything related.

owenfi 3y ago

But you can publish the output, right? And then a “third party” could train a different model on just that published material without copying it or ever agreeing to a EULA.

torstenvl 3y ago
If you believe that courts will find your shell game convincing, you are free to try it and incur the legal risk. I recommend you consult with an attorney before doing so.
- themoonisachees 3y ago
  You could simply train on the output straight up and nobody would ever be able to tell anyway.

6gvONxR4sf7o 3y ago

One of the common elements of training sets for these models (including LLama) is the Books3 dataset, which is a huge number of pirated books from torrents. That's exactly what you described. Regardless, the lack of a license cannot give you more permission than a restrictive license. You're arguing that if take a book out of a bookstore without paying (or signing a contract), then I have more rights than if I sign a contract and then leave with the book.

torstenvl 3y ago
> the lack of a license [agreement] cannot give you more permission than a restrictive license [agreement] That is clearly false. It's hard to imagine the confusion of ideas that would lead you to such a conclusion.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

danShumway 3y ago

> Arbitrary Internet data that is not copied does not have any copyright implications. Training a model on model output isn't copying. There's no way to phrase this where training a model on copyrighted human-generated images/text isn't copying, but training a model on computer-generated images/text is copying. > If you want to do that, you have to limit end-user freedom with an EULA. If you want to limit end-user freedom with a EULA, you have to figure out how to get users to sign it. Copyright is one way to force them to do so, but doesn't really seem relevant to this situation if training a model on copyrighted material is fair use. And again, if somebody generates a giant dataset with LLaMA, if you want to argue that pushing that into another LLM to train with is making a copy of that data, then there's no way to get around the implication there that training on a human-generated image is also making a copy of that image.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
torstenvl 3y ago
> Training a model on model output isn't copying. That's literally what I said. > There's no way to phrase this where training a model on copyrighted human-generated images/text isn't copying, but training a model on computer-generated images/text is copying. Literally nobody is saying that. > If you want to limit end-user freedom with a EULA, you have to figure out how to get users to sign it. That is not true. ProCD v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996). You and others seem to have an over-the-top hostile reaction to the idea that contract law can do things copyright law cannot do. But it is objective and unarguable fact.
- danShumway 3y ago
  > Literally nobody is saying that. Okay? Apologies for making that assumption. But if you're not saying that, then your position here is even less defensible. Arguing that model output isn't copyrightable but that it's still covered by EULA if anyone anywhere tries to use it is even more absurd than arguing that it's covered by copyright. The interpretation that this is covered by copyright is arguably the charitable interpretation of what you wrote. > That is not true. ProCD v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996). ProCD is about shrinkwrap licenses, the court determined that buying the software and installing it was the equivalent of agreeing to the license. In no way does that imply that licenses are enforceable on people who never agreed to the licenses. The court expanded what counts as agreement, it does not mean you don't have to get people to agree to the EULA. I mean, take pedantic issue with the word "sign" if you want (sure, other types of agreement exist, you're correct), but the basic point is still true -- if you want to restrict people with a EULA, they need to actually agree to the EULA. All that ProCD did was establish that buying a product and opening the package and installing it constituted agreement. And that becomes a problem because if you don't have IP law as a way to block access to your stuff, then you don't really have a way to force people to agree to the EULA. Someone using LLaMA output to train a model may have never been in a position to agree to that EULA, and Facebook doesn't have the legal ability to say "hey, nobody can use output without agreeing to this" because they don't have copyright over that output. Can they get people to sign a EULA before downloading the weights from them? Sure. Is that enough to restrict everyone else who didn't download those weights? No. To go a step further, if you don't believe that weights themselves are copyrightable, then putting a EULA in front of them is even less effective because people can just download the weights from someone else other than Facebook. You can host a project Gutenberg book and get people to sign a EULA before they download it from you, even though you don't own the copyright. And that EULA would be binding, yes. But you cannot host a project Gutenberg book, put a EULA in front of it, and then claim that people who don't download it from you and instead just grab it off of a mirror are still bound by that EULA. Your ability to control access is what gives you the ability to force people to sign the EULA. And that's kind of dependent on IP law. If someone sticks the LLaMA 2.0 weights on a P2P site, and those weights aren't covered by copyright or other IP law, then no, under no interpretation of US law would downloading those weights from a 3rd-party source constitute an agreement with Facebook. But even if you don't take that position, even if you assume that model weights are copyrightable, if I download a dataset generated by LLaMA, there is still no shrinkwrap license on that data. To your original point: > If someone uses LLaMa output to train models, it is unlikely they will be sued for copyright infringement. It is far more likely they will be sued for breach of contract. It is incredibly unlikely that someone using a 3rd-party database of LLaMA output would be found to be in violation of contract law unless at the very least they had actually agreed to the contract by downloading LLaMA themselves. A restriction on the usage of LLaMA does not mean anything for someone who is using LLaMA output but has not taken any action that would imply agreement to that EULA. > You and others seem to have an over-the-top hostile reaction to the idea that contract law can do things copyright law cannot do. But it is objective and unarguable fact. No, what we have a hostile reaction to is the objectively false idea that a EULA covers unrelated 3rd parties. That's not a thing, it's never been a thing. I don't know what to say if you disagree with that other than that I'm putting a EULA in front of all of Shakespeare's works that says you now have to pay me $20 before you use them no matter where you get them from, and apparently that's a thing you believe I can do?

wwweston 3y ago

> Arbitrary Internet data that is not copied It's all but certainly copied, and not just in the "held in memory" sense but actually stored along with the rest of the training collection. What may not happen is distribution. There's a difference in scale/nature of copyright violation between the two but both could well be construed that way. Additionally, I think there's a reasonable argument that use as training data is a novel one that should be treated differently under the law. And if there's not: > If you want to do that, you have to limit end-user freedom with an EULA. What will eventually happen -- at least without some kind of worldwide convention -- is that someone who can successfully dodge licensing obligations will be able to take and redistribute weight-data and/or clean-room code. At least, if we're adopting a "because we can" approach to everything related.