4 ms·
> I'm even happy to hear arguments about whether it is legally binding to say "No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or t
by jll29 2y ago
> I'm even happy to hear arguments about whether it is legally binding to say "No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the publisher".
Disclaimer: IANAL.
The law of course depends on jurisdiction, but in many countries copyright law means (a) everything is forbidden unless there is a license contract that permits the license holder to do it, or (b) it falls under a few cases of pre-defined exemptions (e.g. fair use for science and teaching, this is restricted to parts of works e.g. chapters or indiv. papers for teaching in a closed group, or citation of material as scientific standards require, no mention of ML training).
No mention => no license.
- miohtama 2y agoCopyright laws govern republication, broadcasting, and it can be argued that the AI models are not republications of the content. For example software piracy is republication as illegal copies are made available. They do not govern the actual use of software. The software license then comes from the agreement that you can get a copy of a particular software with particular usage limits, and those limits only, but this agreement is not derived from copyright law. If you want to read book from author X you still need to buy the book, no LLM can reproduce a book, or an article, today.
- flir 2y agoNo copy => no copyight infringement? Terabytes of training data reduced to a model that fits on a memory stick. The models can certainly spit out bits and pieces, but I haven't seen any evidence they can recite back an entire book. (I argue that what the model is doing is a lot less like copying, and a lot more like learning).
- gosub100 2y agoSo they had a copy, then used it to produce a product that made money, but didn't pay royalties for the use of the copy. I guess AIs best defense is that, yeah they obtained copies without paying, but it wasn't a "performance" or otherwise distribution of copyright material. The infringement was done internally. (God this irony is not lost on me: "hey gpt, what's the best argument to make for the $X-circuit court to persuade Judge $Y that we are not infringing on claim $Z under statute $W?")
- flir 2y ago> So they had a copy [...] but didn't pay royalties for the use of the copy. Possession rather than use, I think, but that seems likely, yes. But I don't believe the model itself is infringing.