6 ms·

Crazy that this is not fair use but ai is.

by raytopia 2y ago

TeeMassive 2y ago
The argument can be more easily made that AI is transformative compared to copying the content of eBooks.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
pcaharrier 2y ago
Dare I say "Follow the money"?
mrweasel 2y ago
Just make an LLM spit out a Metallic song, that will fix that.
- wileydragonfly 2y ago
  Metallica. Not even once since Napster. NOT EVEN ONCE.
bunderbunder 2y ago
Something like this would never have fallen under fair use in the first place, I don't think. It doesn't really mesh very well with any of the factors US law lists as considerations when deciding whether or not use is fair. If this falls under anything it falls under the first sale doctrine. I generally side with publishers and artists on the generative AI debate, but I'll at least concede that they have some grounds for a fair use argument based on the transformative (legal jargon meaning, not buzzword meaning) nature of the work they're doing. (IANAL, just guesing, etc etc.)
- codedokode 2y ago
  Did AI companies buy copyrighted works though?
  - bunderbunder 2y ago
    If they had then fair use questions would have been a moot point.
bowsamic 2y ago
Is AI fair use? I'm no legal expert, but my impression was that the legal precedent simply had not been set yet, but that when it is set it is likely against AI
thebrid 2y ago
As much as I love the Internet Archive, is it really that crazy? The four factors used for determining fair use are: * the purpose and character of the use * the nature of the copyrighted work; * the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole * the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. In the Internet Archive case, they're distributing whole, unmodified copies of copyrighted works which will of course compete with those original works. In the AI use case, they're typically aiming not to output any significant part of the training data. So they could well argue that the use is transformative, reproducing only minimal parts of the original work and not competing in the market with the original work.
- hiatus 2y ago
  > In the Internet Archive case, they're distributing whole, unmodified copies of copyrighted works which will of course compete with those original works. Libraries would be illegal if conceived of today. If this weren't digital it would be a violation of first sale doctrine.
  - beardyw 2y ago
    > Libraries would be illegal if conceived of today. Just shows how far forward we have progressed. Maybe book burnings next to prevent resale?
  - tptacek 2y ago
    How? Libraries lend out actual physical objects. They're not xeroxing the books and handing them out.
    - tcgv 2y ago
      Exactly. And if a book is in high demand in a library, you'd either have to wait your turn or purchase one yourself to avoid the lending queue.
      - 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
tptacek 2y ago
IA's arguments that this was fair use seem exceptionally weak: * Their "transformation" argument comes down to easing access, which has already been shot down in previous cases; unsurprising, since Napster could make the same argument. * Their "nature of the work" argument came down to the fact that some of the books they scanned were nonfiction. * They made a halfhearted attempt to claim that "amount and substantiality" weighed neutrally in this case, despite copying entire books wholesale and making them available in their entirety. * They brought experts to make their "commercial impact" argument who limited their analysis to physical books(?!) despite the publishers coming to the case with competing ebooks. It's wild to me they thought they could win this case. There's the law as people at IA and on message boards want it to be, and there's the law as it is. For people who want those two concepts to come closer together, this case seems like a major setback and an egregious strategic blunder.
- codedokode 2y ago
  If you buy a physical book, you have a right to lend it for free or re-sell it (first-sale doctrine). The publishers want to establish a precedent that you cannot do the same thing with digital books: the library must buy a special license and pay for every reading. So this is about stripping people from their rights regarding to books made with a new technology.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    It's not the same thing. When you give a book to someone else, you lose a physical object and they gain one. To "give" an ebook to someone, you have to copy it. We have a whole body of law about when it's OK to copy things.
    - codedokode 2y ago
      IA allowed to read books throught the website so no copies are made. When lending a book through file download they used DRM to prevent reading after the lending term ends.
Minor49er 2y ago
Creating something transformative is worse than straight up copying it? How does this make any sense?
woadwarrior01 2y ago
Indeed! Although in the AI training case it's much more surreptitious. Everyone trains on them, the only story that I'm aware of is the one about the OpenAI books1 and books2 datasets used to train GPT3.
suprjami 2y ago
Lending books to students doesn't make Red Line go up.
AcerbicZero 2y ago
I wonder how legit it would be to have an AI scan over the copy, re-write it (as minimally as possible) in its own words, and then just distribute that. Probably not all that legit, but arguably thats where we're headed anyway :/
- jadbox 2y ago
  The challenge (afaik) is that "as minimally as possible" is very much a gray line, and that line can be make weaker depending on the volume of material.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Crazy that this is not fair use but ai is.

TeeMassive 2y ago

The argument can be more easily made that AI is transformative compared to copying the content of eBooks.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

pcaharrier 2y ago

Dare I say "Follow the money"?

mrweasel 2y ago

Just make an LLM spit out a Metallic song, that will fix that.

wileydragonfly 2y ago
Metallica. Not even once since Napster. NOT EVEN ONCE.

bunderbunder 2y ago

Something like this would never have fallen under fair use in the first place, I don't think. It doesn't really mesh very well with any of the factors US law lists as considerations when deciding whether or not use is fair. If this falls under anything it falls under the first sale doctrine. I generally side with publishers and artists on the generative AI debate, but I'll at least concede that they have some grounds for a fair use argument based on the transformative (legal jargon meaning, not buzzword meaning) nature of the work they're doing. (IANAL, just guesing, etc etc.)

codedokode 2y ago
Did AI companies buy copyrighted works though?
- bunderbunder 2y ago
  If they had then fair use questions would have been a moot point.

bowsamic 2y ago

Is AI fair use? I'm no legal expert, but my impression was that the legal precedent simply had not been set yet, but that when it is set it is likely against AI

thebrid 2y ago

As much as I love the Internet Archive, is it really that crazy? The four factors used for determining fair use are: * the purpose and character of the use * the nature of the copyrighted work; * the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole * the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. In the Internet Archive case, they're distributing whole, unmodified copies of copyrighted works which will of course compete with those original works. In the AI use case, they're typically aiming not to output any significant part of the training data. So they could well argue that the use is transformative, reproducing only minimal parts of the original work and not competing in the market with the original work.

hiatus 2y ago
> In the Internet Archive case, they're distributing whole, unmodified copies of copyrighted works which will of course compete with those original works. Libraries would be illegal if conceived of today. If this weren't digital it would be a violation of first sale doctrine.
- beardyw 2y ago
  > Libraries would be illegal if conceived of today. Just shows how far forward we have progressed. Maybe book burnings next to prevent resale?
- tptacek 2y ago
  How? Libraries lend out actual physical objects. They're not xeroxing the books and handing them out.
  - tcgv 2y ago
    Exactly. And if a book is in high demand in a library, you'd either have to wait your turn or purchase one yourself to avoid the lending queue.
    - 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

tptacek 2y ago

IA's arguments that this was fair use seem exceptionally weak: * Their "transformation" argument comes down to easing access, which has already been shot down in previous cases; unsurprising, since Napster could make the same argument. * Their "nature of the work" argument came down to the fact that some of the books they scanned were nonfiction. * They made a halfhearted attempt to claim that "amount and substantiality" weighed neutrally in this case, despite copying entire books wholesale and making them available in their entirety. * They brought experts to make their "commercial impact" argument who limited their analysis to physical books(?!) despite the publishers coming to the case with competing ebooks. It's wild to me they thought they could win this case. There's the law as people at IA and on message boards want it to be, and there's the law as it is. For people who want those two concepts to come closer together, this case seems like a major setback and an egregious strategic blunder.

codedokode 2y ago
If you buy a physical book, you have a right to lend it for free or re-sell it (first-sale doctrine). The publishers want to establish a precedent that you cannot do the same thing with digital books: the library must buy a special license and pay for every reading. So this is about stripping people from their rights regarding to books made with a new technology.
- tptacek 2y ago
  It's not the same thing. When you give a book to someone else, you lose a physical object and they gain one. To "give" an ebook to someone, you have to copy it. We have a whole body of law about when it's OK to copy things.
  - codedokode 2y ago
    IA allowed to read books throught the website so no copies are made. When lending a book through file download they used DRM to prevent reading after the lending term ends.

Minor49er 2y ago

Creating something transformative is worse than straight up copying it? How does this make any sense?

woadwarrior01 2y ago

Indeed! Although in the AI training case it's much more surreptitious. Everyone trains on them, the only story that I'm aware of is the one about the OpenAI books1 and books2 datasets used to train GPT3.

suprjami 2y ago

Lending books to students doesn't make Red Line go up.

AcerbicZero 2y ago

I wonder how legit it would be to have an AI scan over the copy, re-write it (as minimally as possible) in its own words, and then just distribute that. Probably not all that legit, but arguably thats where we're headed anyway :/

jadbox 2y ago
The challenge (afaik) is that "as minimally as possible" is very much a gray line, and that line can be make weaker depending on the volume of material.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]