3 ms·

That's not a one-to-one analogy. The LLM isn't giving you the book, its giving you information it learned from the book. The analogous scenario is "Can I read

That's not a one-to-one analogy. The LLM isn't giving you the book, its giving you information it learned from the book. The analogous scenario is "Can I read a book and publish a blog post with all the information in that book, in my own words?", and under US copyright law, the answer is: Yes.

triceratops 2y ago
> The analogous scenario is "Can I read a book and publish a blog post with all the information in that book, in my own words?" The analogous scenario is actually "Can I read a book that I obtained illegally and face no consequences for obtaining it illegally?" The answer is "Yes" there are no consequences for reading said book, for individuals or machines. But individuals can face serious consequences for obtaining it illegally. And corporations are trying to argue those consequences shouldn't apply to them.
- School-Cotton 2y ago
  > But individuals can face serious consequences for obtaining it illegally. Can they? Who has ever faced serious consequences for pirating books in the US?
  - triceratops 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz (Please no pedantry about how scientific papers aren't books)
    - drdaeman 2y ago
      Not to diminish the atrocity of what happened to Aaron, but is this a highly abnormal case of prosecutor overzeal or is it common for people to be charged and held liable for downloading and/or consuming (without distribution) of copyrighted materials (in any form) without obtaining a license? Asking because I genuinely don't know. I believe all I've ever read about persecution of "commonplace" copyright violations was either about distributors or tied to bidirectional nature of peer-to-peer exchange (torrents typically upload to others even as you download = redistribution).
    - nashashmi 2y ago
      Aaron Swartz downloaded a lot of stuff. Did he publish the stuff too? That would be an infringement. But only downloading the stuff? And never distributing it? Not sure if it’s worth a violation .
      - mburns 2y ago
        >Aaron Swartz downloaded a lot of stuff. A tiny fraction compared to the 80+ terabytes Facebook downloaded. >Did he publish the stuff too? No. > Not sure if it’s worth a violation . Exactly.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
piva00 2y ago
There's no analogous because the scale of it takes it to a whole different level and degree, and for all intents and purposes we tend to care about level and degree. Me taking over control of the lemonade market in my neighbourhood wouldn't ever be a problem to anyone, a very minor annoyance; instead if I managed to corner the lemonade market of a whole continent it'd be a very different thing.
codedokode 2y ago
The better analogy is "can my business use illegally downloaded works to save on buying a license". For example, can you use pirated copy of Windows in your company? Can you use pirated copy of a book to compute weights of a mathematical model?

triceratops 2y ago

> The analogous scenario is "Can I read a book and publish a blog post with all the information in that book, in my own words?" The analogous scenario is actually "Can I read a book that I obtained illegally and face no consequences for obtaining it illegally?" The answer is "Yes" there are no consequences for reading said book, for individuals or machines. But individuals can face serious consequences for obtaining it illegally. And corporations are trying to argue those consequences shouldn't apply to them.

School-Cotton 2y ago
> But individuals can face serious consequences for obtaining it illegally. Can they? Who has ever faced serious consequences for pirating books in the US?
- triceratops 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz (Please no pedantry about how scientific papers aren't books)
  - drdaeman 2y ago
    Not to diminish the atrocity of what happened to Aaron, but is this a highly abnormal case of prosecutor overzeal or is it common for people to be charged and held liable for downloading and/or consuming (without distribution) of copyrighted materials (in any form) without obtaining a license? Asking because I genuinely don't know. I believe all I've ever read about persecution of "commonplace" copyright violations was either about distributors or tied to bidirectional nature of peer-to-peer exchange (torrents typically upload to others even as you download = redistribution).
  - nashashmi 2y ago
    Aaron Swartz downloaded a lot of stuff. Did he publish the stuff too? That would be an infringement. But only downloading the stuff? And never distributing it? Not sure if it’s worth a violation .
    - mburns 2y ago
      >Aaron Swartz downloaded a lot of stuff. A tiny fraction compared to the 80+ terabytes Facebook downloaded. >Did he publish the stuff too? No. > Not sure if it’s worth a violation . Exactly.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

piva00 2y ago

There's no analogous because the scale of it takes it to a whole different level and degree, and for all intents and purposes we tend to care about level and degree. Me taking over control of the lemonade market in my neighbourhood wouldn't ever be a problem to anyone, a very minor annoyance; instead if I managed to corner the lemonade market of a whole continent it'd be a very different thing.

codedokode 2y ago

The better analogy is "can my business use illegally downloaded works to save on buying a license". For example, can you use pirated copy of Windows in your company? Can you use pirated copy of a book to compute weights of a mathematical model?