5 ms·

>Have you considered that you have some traits that make you eligible to read books and access information freely in the country you live in*? Something about b

by gruez 2y ago

>Have you considered that you have some traits that make you eligible to read books and access information freely in the country you live in*? Something about being a conscious human being enjoying human rights, perhaps? Not a relevant factor when it comes to copyright law. Fair use (the law that's most applicable here) applies regardless if you're a student using incorporating news articles into your work, or google making thumbnails and displaying them on their search results.

anileated 2y ago
This is not a good analogy. Google does not display the contents to any significant degree (you have to visit the search result). And even then it was/is in legal trouble, in fact (in some countries like Australia* more than others). Furthermore: > Examples of fair use in United States copyright law include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, and scholarship. I do not see “automated generation of derivative works of arbitrary nature” in it. * https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-55760673.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-55760673.amp
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  > I do not see “automated generation of derivative works of arbitrary nature” in it The “automated” isn’t really key. If you read a book, and learn from it, and are able to use that knowledge in other contexts, should you pay a licensing fee? It doesn’t matter if “you” is a human or machine.
  - anileated 2y ago
    “Automated” is key. You are not an automaton, not a machine, you do not infinitely scale with compute power; but unlike a machine you have free will and agency, and legal framework of developed countries grants you human rights that include freedom. That was, in fact, my entire point.
- gruez 2y ago
  >This is not a good analogy. Google does not display the contents to any significant degree (you have to visit the search result). The point isn't that AI training is legal because it's like generating thumbnails. That is being argued in the courts right now. The point is that fair use exemptions isn't limited to "being a conscious human being enjoying human rights", as google generating thumnails and snippets using computers shows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Amazon.com,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Amazon.com.... > Examples of fair use in United States copyright law include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, and scholarship. Those are examples, not an exhaustive list. It's not even something that Judges are supposed to compare against when deciding whether something is fair use or not, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors
  - anileated 2y ago
    > The point is that fair use exemptions isn't limited to "being a conscious human being enjoying human rights" Sure. However, my point is that this is not fair use*, so other principles need to be applied. Whether legal systems in various countries find that fair use applies here or not, I agree we are yet to see. * At least in cases where it’s an LLM operated at scale for profit (which I suppose would not hold for Meta’s models if they were truly open, but that’s not the case if they require obtaining a license in some conditions).
    - gruez 2y ago
      >Sure. However, my point is that this is not fair use (at least in cases where it’s an LLM operated for profit), so other principles need to be applied. This isn't a complete argument. Most of AI companies' argument relies on the fact that AI models are "transformative". That's a plausible claim, and as Perfect 10 v. Google, and Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc. has shown, being a for-profit company is hardly a disqualification from getting fair protection.
      - anileated 2y ago

by gruez 2y ago

anileated 2y ago

This is not a good analogy. Google does not display the contents to any significant degree (you have to visit the search result). And even then it was/is in legal trouble, in fact (in some countries like Australia* more than others). Furthermore: > Examples of fair use in United States copyright law include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, and scholarship. I do not see “automated generation of derivative works of arbitrary nature” in it. * https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-55760673.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-55760673.amp

seanmcdirmid 2y ago
> I do not see “automated generation of derivative works of arbitrary nature” in it The “automated” isn’t really key. If you read a book, and learn from it, and are able to use that knowledge in other contexts, should you pay a licensing fee? It doesn’t matter if “you” is a human or machine.
- anileated 2y ago
  “Automated” is key. You are not an automaton, not a machine, you do not infinitely scale with compute power; but unlike a machine you have free will and agency, and legal framework of developed countries grants you human rights that include freedom. That was, in fact, my entire point.
gruez 2y ago
>This is not a good analogy. Google does not display the contents to any significant degree (you have to visit the search result). The point isn't that AI training is legal because it's like generating thumbnails. That is being argued in the courts right now. The point is that fair use exemptions isn't limited to "being a conscious human being enjoying human rights", as google generating thumnails and snippets using computers shows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Amazon.com,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_10,_Inc._v._Amazon.com.... > Examples of fair use in United States copyright law include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, and scholarship. Those are examples, not an exhaustive list. It's not even something that Judges are supposed to compare against when deciding whether something is fair use or not, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#U.S._fair_use_factors
- anileated 2y ago
  > The point is that fair use exemptions isn't limited to "being a conscious human being enjoying human rights" Sure. However, my point is that this is not fair use*, so other principles need to be applied. Whether legal systems in various countries find that fair use applies here or not, I agree we are yet to see. * At least in cases where it’s an LLM operated at scale for profit (which I suppose would not hold for Meta’s models if they were truly open, but that’s not the case if they require obtaining a license in some conditions).
  - gruez 2y ago
    >Sure. However, my point is that this is not fair use (at least in cases where it’s an LLM operated for profit), so other principles need to be applied. This isn't a complete argument. Most of AI companies' argument relies on the fact that AI models are "transformative". That's a plausible claim, and as Perfect 10 v. Google, and Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc. has shown, being a for-profit company is hardly a disqualification from getting fair protection.
    - anileated 2y ago