3 ms·

I actually don't see the legal distinction here. A browser with an ad blocker is also: 1. Asking for a copy of your content 2. Manipulating the content 3. Re

I actually don't see the legal distinction here. A browser with an ad blocker is also: 1. Asking for a copy of your content 2. Manipulating the content 3. Redistributing the content to the end-user who requested it Ditto for the LLM that has been asked by the end user to fetch your content and show it to them (possibly with a manipulation step e.g. summarization). I don't think there's a legal, copyright distinction between doing that on a server vs doing that on a local machine. And, for example, if there were a difference: using a browser on a remote desktop would be illegal, or using curl on a machine you were SSHed into would be illegal. Also, an LLM running locally on your machine (doing the exact same thing) would be legal! I understand that it's inconvenient and difficult to monetize content when an LLM is summarizing it, and hard to upsell other pages on a website to users when they aren't coming to your website and are instead accessing it through an LLM. But legally I think there's not an obvious distinction on copyright grounds, and if there were (other than a very fine-grained ban on specifically LLMs accessing websites, without any general principle behind it), it would catch up a lot of legitimate behavior in the dragnet. I'd also point out that in the U.S., search engines have passed the "Fair Use" test of exemption from copyright — I think it would be very hard to make a distinction between what a search engine is doing (which is on a server!) and what an LLM is doing based on trying to say copyright distinguishes between server vs client architectures.

gpm 2y ago
The difference isn't so much the server, but the third party. You're allowed to modify computer programs (websites) as part of using them. You aren't allowed to then transfer the modified version (see section 117 of the US copyright code). If you're in control of the server there's a plausible argument that you aren't transferring it. When perplexity is in control of the server... I don't see it. A traditional ad-blocker isn't "redistributing the content to the end-user who requested it" because it's the end user who has ownership over the data the whole time (note: not the copyright, the actual individual instance of the data). Unlike with a server run by a third party there is no third party legal entity who ever has the data. You could conceivably make "ublock origin except it's a proxy run by a third party and we modify the website on the proxy", I'd agree that that has the same problem as a service like perplexity (though a different fair use analysis and I'm not sure what way that would go). > I'd also point out that in the U.S., search engines have passed the "Fair Use" test of exemption from copyright — I think it would be very hard to make a distinction between what a search engine is doing (which is on a server!) and what an LLM is doing based on trying to say copyright distinguishes between server vs client architectures. Well, sure. It's easy to distinguish between an LLM summarizing content and a traditional search engine though (and in ways relevant to the fair use analysis), just not based on the server client architecture. Disclaimer: Not a lawyer, not legal advice, and so on.
- reissbaker 2y ago
  Section 117 is irrelevant — it grants archival rights to end-users for computer programs. It doesn't make claims about servers or legal third parties. (Although it is relevant in disproving your point: I can pay an archival service to back up data I legally have the right to view, even if the backup is then on their server, and despite the service being a different legal entity than me. And they can give me a copy of it later, too.) > You could conceivably make "ublock origin except it's a proxy run by a third party and we modify the website on the proxy", I'd agree that that has the same problem as a service like perplexity (though a different fair use analysis and I'm not sure what way that would go). So, running a local LLM version of Perplexity that does exactly the same thing is legal, but Perplexity is illegal, because "a third party legal entity has the data"?

gpm 2y ago

The difference isn't so much the server, but the third party. You're allowed to modify computer programs (websites) as part of using them. You aren't allowed to then transfer the modified version (see section 117 of the US copyright code). If you're in control of the server there's a plausible argument that you aren't transferring it. When perplexity is in control of the server... I don't see it. A traditional ad-blocker isn't "redistributing the content to the end-user who requested it" because it's the end user who has ownership over the data the whole time (note: not the copyright, the actual individual instance of the data). Unlike with a server run by a third party there is no third party legal entity who ever has the data. You could conceivably make "ublock origin except it's a proxy run by a third party and we modify the website on the proxy", I'd agree that that has the same problem as a service like perplexity (though a different fair use analysis and I'm not sure what way that would go). > I'd also point out that in the U.S., search engines have passed the "Fair Use" test of exemption from copyright — I think it would be very hard to make a distinction between what a search engine is doing (which is on a server!) and what an LLM is doing based on trying to say copyright distinguishes between server vs client architectures. Well, sure. It's easy to distinguish between an LLM summarizing content and a traditional search engine though (and in ways relevant to the fair use analysis), just not based on the server client architecture. Disclaimer: Not a lawyer, not legal advice, and so on.

reissbaker 2y ago
Section 117 is irrelevant — it grants archival rights to end-users for computer programs. It doesn't make claims about servers or legal third parties. (Although it is relevant in disproving your point: I can pay an archival service to back up data I legally have the right to view, even if the backup is then on their server, and despite the service being a different legal entity than me. And they can give me a copy of it later, too.) > You could conceivably make "ublock origin except it's a proxy run by a third party and we modify the website on the proxy", I'd agree that that has the same problem as a service like perplexity (though a different fair use analysis and I'm not sure what way that would go). So, running a local LLM version of Perplexity that does exactly the same thing is legal, but Perplexity is illegal, because "a third party legal entity has the data"?