3 ms·

Or, more likely, drop the case to avoid establishing a precedent. Sounds like Meta are banking on the entertainment industry looking at it and deciding that th

Or, more likely, drop the case to avoid establishing a precedent. Sounds like Meta are banking on the entertainment industry looking at it and deciding that the risk of losing this case is too high given Meta’s almost infinitely deep pockets to mount a legal defence.

IshKebab 2y ago
Maybe. But it's hard to see how they could possibly win this case no matter how good their defence team is.
- d1sxeyes 2y ago
  So, if Meta were found to have been seeding or making copyrighted materials available to others without permission, that's a slam dunk, I think. But Meta's contention is 'you don't have any proof of that'. I think there is enough existing case law and ambiguity in the law as it's written that Meta stand a reasonable (although not a good) chance of being able to argue that they did not commit any crime because a.) they did not create the infringing copy (or that the infringing copy that they received was a technical copy, and they did not create an infringing copy themselves) b.) they did not infringe for private or financial gain (the models they trained on this material were released to the public for free). There's an argument that copyright infringement occurs only upon distribution, and as far as I'm aware, there's no case law that just downloading a copy is illegal. Meta may also be able to argue that their use of the material could be considered 'fair', as it is non-commercial, transformative, and that the use of the material does not harm the market for the original work. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not arguing about the merits of these arguments, just that they seem to me to be plausible.
  - 6stringmerc 2y ago
    Meta has a target on its back after getting away with meme jacking / users reposting without attribution / tanking media outlets and becoming a “news source” over the last decade. I’m all for them getting a dose of reality in this case, and nothing consistently whips tech in the pocketbook like whining their interpretation of Fair Use is legal when it clearly is not.
  - IshKebab 2y ago
    > a.) they did not create the infringing copy (or that the infringing copy that they received was a technical copy, and they did not create an infringing copy themselves) Copyright protects against making copies of the work, which they definitely did. > There's an argument that copyright infringement occurs only upon distribution Not in most countries. Certainly not in America. > b.) they did not infringe for private or financial gain (the models they trained on this material were released to the public for free). They definitely gained from it. If their argument rests on that then they're screwed. > Meta may also be able to argue that their use of the material could be considered 'fair', as it is non-commercial, transformative, and that the use of the material does not harm the market for the original work. Probably their best bet but it's hard to see how that would fly given that it is commercial even if they released it for free, and fair use normally depends on how much of the work you use; they used all of everything.
    - d1sxeyes 2y ago
      > Copyright protects against making copies of the work, which they definitely did. I agree. But a good lawyer might be able to argue that they only received a copy, they didn’t make one themselves. > Not in most countries. Certainly not in America. I think the law itself is clear that reproduction is its own right, but I couldn’t find any case law where someone was prosecuted only for reproduction. There are certainly some concerns with the law as it’s written (such as the first sale doctrine, or home ripping of CDs, etc.). > They definitely gained from it. If their argument rests on that then they're screwed. Yes but were the gains private and financial? Again, a good lawyer might be able to argue that actually, Facebook invested a lot (financially) into training the models, and then released for free, so are net negative financially. > fair use normally depends on how much of the work you use Fair use is a very difficult one to put an exact definition on, and whatever definitions exist do not determine based purely on the amount of the work used. There is case law that a full work can be considered fair use, and that even minimal parts of the work are not. Again, a good lawyer could perhaps make this argument successfully. I don’t think anyone without access to a legal team that costs millions would stand much of a chance here, but Meta might.
- stephencanon 2y ago
  They don't want to win, they want to reach a settlement where they admit no wrongdoing, but agree to pay some medium-large fee that establishes a precedent.¹ That fee is essentially trivial to Meta, but becomes an effective moat against new upstart rivals. The possibility of losing everything is the stick they wield to encourage the copyright owners to agree to accept only a medium-large fee. ¹ Not necessarily a formal legal precedent, but at least a floor on the "market value" of access to the data
stogot 2y ago
what is worse to them: Precedent that LLMs get to keep & use copyrighted data LLMs get to keep & use copyrighted data without legal precedent I bet the industry will file amicus briefs to try to support the plaintiffs
- d1sxeyes 2y ago
  Dropping the case does not create any precedent, that’s the point. Losing the case would. If you’re going to have this fight, wait until you have it with a worse-prepared and worse-resourced opponent where you’re more confident of the win.
escapecharacter 2y ago
As much as I dislike the idea of individual copyright owners, like visual artists or writers, having their works scraped for AI without compensation… If this does break the stranglehold that copyright has over creative acts, especially in the US, this feels like a net good.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  I love the idea. The problem is that we never even tried to establish some standard licensing system that encourages rewarding the creator while using their copyright. Most people would rather work around and re-invent a slightly bumpoer wheel.
- bigtimesink 2y ago
  What's your test for when a use is ok and being held back by copyright law versus when it's damaging? Why is one ok but not the other?
  - mptest 2y ago
    I've seen the most people take the most issue with the insane "authors life + Xx years" that copyright lasts for, not really components of fair use.
    - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
      Yeah it shouldn’t be much more than a decade imo. Being able to sit on a copyright for many many decades is genuinely just rent seeking, and bad for everyone.
JKCalhoun 2y ago
Awesome. And just to be clear, Meta will walk away scot-free, but Billy Torrent is definitely still going to be fined $500,000 if he pulls down "Sleeping Beauty" from 1959.
- dgb23 2y ago
  Exactly. There’s always a question of power.

IshKebab 2y ago

Maybe. But it's hard to see how they could possibly win this case no matter how good their defence team is.

d1sxeyes 2y ago
So, if Meta were found to have been seeding or making copyrighted materials available to others without permission, that's a slam dunk, I think. But Meta's contention is 'you don't have any proof of that'. I think there is enough existing case law and ambiguity in the law as it's written that Meta stand a reasonable (although not a good) chance of being able to argue that they did not commit any crime because a.) they did not create the infringing copy (or that the infringing copy that they received was a technical copy, and they did not create an infringing copy themselves) b.) they did not infringe for private or financial gain (the models they trained on this material were released to the public for free). There's an argument that copyright infringement occurs only upon distribution, and as far as I'm aware, there's no case law that just downloading a copy is illegal. Meta may also be able to argue that their use of the material could be considered 'fair', as it is non-commercial, transformative, and that the use of the material does not harm the market for the original work. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not arguing about the merits of these arguments, just that they seem to me to be plausible.
- 6stringmerc 2y ago
  Meta has a target on its back after getting away with meme jacking / users reposting without attribution / tanking media outlets and becoming a “news source” over the last decade. I’m all for them getting a dose of reality in this case, and nothing consistently whips tech in the pocketbook like whining their interpretation of Fair Use is legal when it clearly is not.
- IshKebab 2y ago
  > a.) they did not create the infringing copy (or that the infringing copy that they received was a technical copy, and they did not create an infringing copy themselves) Copyright protects against making copies of the work, which they definitely did. > There's an argument that copyright infringement occurs only upon distribution Not in most countries. Certainly not in America. > b.) they did not infringe for private or financial gain (the models they trained on this material were released to the public for free). They definitely gained from it. If their argument rests on that then they're screwed. > Meta may also be able to argue that their use of the material could be considered 'fair', as it is non-commercial, transformative, and that the use of the material does not harm the market for the original work. Probably their best bet but it's hard to see how that would fly given that it is commercial even if they released it for free, and fair use normally depends on how much of the work you use; they used all of everything.
  - d1sxeyes 2y ago
    > Copyright protects against making copies of the work, which they definitely did. I agree. But a good lawyer might be able to argue that they only received a copy, they didn’t make one themselves. > Not in most countries. Certainly not in America. I think the law itself is clear that reproduction is its own right, but I couldn’t find any case law where someone was prosecuted only for reproduction. There are certainly some concerns with the law as it’s written (such as the first sale doctrine, or home ripping of CDs, etc.). > They definitely gained from it. If their argument rests on that then they're screwed. Yes but were the gains private and financial? Again, a good lawyer might be able to argue that actually, Facebook invested a lot (financially) into training the models, and then released for free, so are net negative financially. > fair use normally depends on how much of the work you use Fair use is a very difficult one to put an exact definition on, and whatever definitions exist do not determine based purely on the amount of the work used. There is case law that a full work can be considered fair use, and that even minimal parts of the work are not. Again, a good lawyer could perhaps make this argument successfully. I don’t think anyone without access to a legal team that costs millions would stand much of a chance here, but Meta might.
stephencanon 2y ago
They don't want to win, they want to reach a settlement where they admit no wrongdoing, but agree to pay some medium-large fee that establishes a precedent.¹ That fee is essentially trivial to Meta, but becomes an effective moat against new upstart rivals. The possibility of losing everything is the stick they wield to encourage the copyright owners to agree to accept only a medium-large fee. ¹ Not necessarily a formal legal precedent, but at least a floor on the "market value" of access to the data

stogot 2y ago

what is worse to them: Precedent that LLMs get to keep & use copyrighted data LLMs get to keep & use copyrighted data without legal precedent I bet the industry will file amicus briefs to try to support the plaintiffs

d1sxeyes 2y ago
Dropping the case does not create any precedent, that’s the point. Losing the case would. If you’re going to have this fight, wait until you have it with a worse-prepared and worse-resourced opponent where you’re more confident of the win.

escapecharacter 2y ago

As much as I dislike the idea of individual copyright owners, like visual artists or writers, having their works scraped for AI without compensation… If this does break the stranglehold that copyright has over creative acts, especially in the US, this feels like a net good.

johnnyanmac 2y ago
I love the idea. The problem is that we never even tried to establish some standard licensing system that encourages rewarding the creator while using their copyright. Most people would rather work around and re-invent a slightly bumpoer wheel.
bigtimesink 2y ago
What's your test for when a use is ok and being held back by copyright law versus when it's damaging? Why is one ok but not the other?
- mptest 2y ago
  I've seen the most people take the most issue with the insane "authors life + Xx years" that copyright lasts for, not really components of fair use.
  - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
    Yeah it shouldn’t be much more than a decade imo. Being able to sit on a copyright for many many decades is genuinely just rent seeking, and bad for everyone.

JKCalhoun 2y ago

Awesome. And just to be clear, Meta will walk away scot-free, but Billy Torrent is definitely still going to be fined $500,000 if he pulls down "Sleeping Beauty" from 1959.

dgb23 2y ago
Exactly. There’s always a question of power.