3 ms·

> If I've "learned" Harry Potter to the level where I can reproduce it verbatim, the reproduction would be a copyright violation. By your logic anyone with goo

> If I've "learned" Harry Potter to the level where I can reproduce it verbatim, the reproduction would be a copyright violation. By your logic anyone with good enough memory violates copyright law just by act of remembering something.

great_wubwub 2y ago
No - it's the reproduction, not the memorization.
- greyface- 2y ago
  It's reproduced in the memorizer's neural connectome.
- wiseowise 2y ago
  So training AI on copyrighted data isn’t a problem unless it spits out the data verbatim. Correct?
  - lelanthran 2y ago
    Close. It isn't a problem until it spits out a similar enough copy. Copyright violation doesn't have to be verbatim; taking a 4k movie and reencoding it to 320x200 before distribution isn't legal.
Apreche 2y ago
No, because you don’t actually violate copyright law until you produce and distribute copies. It’s perfectly legal to memorize a book, type up a copy from memory, and to even print out a copy that you keep for yourself. But as soon as you start trying to sell or distribute copies, even for free, now you’re breaking the law as written.
shakna 2y ago
Memory? No. Reproduction? Yes. If you write down a sizeable quote, that can be a copyright violation.
techpineapple 2y ago
This doesn’t seem true. I mean, it might be true if memory could be seen or manipulated, but what would you bring into a court of law to prove that I remembered something too clearly?
ArinaS 2y ago
I don't see that point in the original comment. Remembering copyrighted content ≠ reproducing a verbatim of it.
earthnail 2y ago
That was actually the case in music until a decade ago or so. Led to ridiculous lawsuits (for example Ed Sheeran’s). Previously, artists needed to prove they hadn’t heard the song that they were accused of infringing. That was virtually possible because there’s a lot of music you could hear anywhere, even just a car driving by. Artists continuously lost these court cases. Nowadays the burden of proof is luckily no longer on the defendant. But I think that only changed a decade ago or so, thanks to some efforts by music industry lawyer Damien Riehl. I know, ridiculous.

great_wubwub 2y ago

No - it's the reproduction, not the memorization.

greyface- 2y ago
It's reproduced in the memorizer's neural connectome.
wiseowise 2y ago
So training AI on copyrighted data isn’t a problem unless it spits out the data verbatim. Correct?
- lelanthran 2y ago
  Close. It isn't a problem until it spits out a similar enough copy. Copyright violation doesn't have to be verbatim; taking a 4k movie and reencoding it to 320x200 before distribution isn't legal.

Apreche 2y ago

No, because you don’t actually violate copyright law until you produce and distribute copies. It’s perfectly legal to memorize a book, type up a copy from memory, and to even print out a copy that you keep for yourself. But as soon as you start trying to sell or distribute copies, even for free, now you’re breaking the law as written.

shakna 2y ago

Memory? No. Reproduction? Yes. If you write down a sizeable quote, that can be a copyright violation.

techpineapple 2y ago

This doesn’t seem true. I mean, it might be true if memory could be seen or manipulated, but what would you bring into a court of law to prove that I remembered something too clearly?

ArinaS 2y ago

I don't see that point in the original comment. Remembering copyrighted content ≠ reproducing a verbatim of it.

earthnail 2y ago

That was actually the case in music until a decade ago or so. Led to ridiculous lawsuits (for example Ed Sheeran’s). Previously, artists needed to prove they hadn’t heard the song that they were accused of infringing. That was virtually possible because there’s a lot of music you could hear anywhere, even just a car driving by. Artists continuously lost these court cases. Nowadays the burden of proof is luckily no longer on the defendant. But I think that only changed a decade ago or so, thanks to some efforts by music industry lawyer Damien Riehl. I know, ridiculous.