4 ms·

> The RIAA lawyers never had to demonstrate that copying a DVD cratered the sales of their clients. They just got high penalties for infringers almost by defaul

> The RIAA lawyers never had to demonstrate that copying a DVD cratered the sales of their clients. They just got high penalties for infringers almost by default. The argument for 'fair use' in DVD copying/sharing is much weaker since the thing being shared in that case is a verbatim, digital copy of the work. 'Format shifting' is a tenuous argument, and it's pretty easily limited to making (and not distributing) personal copies of media. For AI training, a central argument is that training is transformative. An LLM isn't intended to produce verbatim copies of trained-upon works, and the problem of hallucination means an LLM would be unreliable at doing so even if instructed to. That transformation could support the idea of fair use, even though copies of the data are made (internally) during the training process and the model's weights are in some sense a work 'derived' from the training data. If you analogize to human leaning, then there's clearly no copyright infringement in a human learning from someone's work and creating their own output, even if it "copies" an artist's style or draws inspiration from someone's plot-line. However, it feels unseemly for a computer program to do this kind of thing at scale, and the commercial impact can be significantly greater.

pessimizer 1y ago
> there's clearly no copyright infringement in a human learning from someone's work and creating their own output, even if it "copies" an artist's style or draws inspiration from someone's plot-line. What do you mean here by "clearly?" This is not at all clear, and court cases have been decided in the opposite direction. This case: https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/marvin-gaye-family-prevails-in-blurred-lines-plagiarism-case-idUSKBN1GX273/ https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/marvin-gaye-family... is as far from what you say is "clearly" true as could possibly be. You're handwaving away the parts of the question that are difficult.
- lsaferite 1y ago
  But that case involves publishing of content. If you want to compare them, it seems like you'd argue that the content of Pharrell Williams' head is somehow copyright infringement. I've yet to see anyone credible say that an AI model outputting exact content and then someone publishing that should be allowed. If you manage to make an AI model output copyrighted content, you can't then claim it's not copyrighted. If you sit on one side of a table and read a book out loud and I write it down (with minor transcription errors), that content is almost certainly still copyrighted content and I could not distribute it legally.
- bloppe 1y ago
  In the case you linked, it wasn't infringement for Robin Thicke to be impressed by Marvin Gaye. It was infringement to create a substantial copy. Applying this same legal doctrine to LLMs, it's totally fine for them to train on copyrighted works. A problem would only arise if they produced substantial copies of those works. It may be difficult to quantify the harm done in that case. Robin Thicke sold millions of copies of blurred lines. Each LLM output is generally consumed by a single person. There could be millions of examples of blatant copyright infringement by LLMs that will never come to light in court. There also could be vanishingly few. We may need new regulations to police it.
dragonwriter 1y ago
. If you analogize to human leaning You can't make valid legal analogies to human learning when dealing with copyright law, because human brains are not a fixed media under copyright law, thus impressions in human brains are not copies of any kind under copyright law, thus "well, when you make an impression in the human brain, its not a copyright violation" is never a good legal analogy for when you make something that is in a form which can be a copy under copyright law.
bluefirebrand 1y ago
> For AI training, a central argument is that training is transformative This doesn't actually matter though does it? They still had access to a copy of the data in the first place to train the AI on Since they likely did not pay a license to have access to the books they trained the AI on, then they violated copyright The same way it would be violating copyright for a university student to pirate a textbook and learn from it
- aydyn 1y ago
  It matters because that is what the plaintiffs are arguing - that the use of copyright material for AI training is not fair use. They are not solely arguing that meta engaged in copyright infringement through piracy.
- librarymuch 1y ago
  One could argue a student going to a library and reading a book is analogous and legal.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    Information contained in subjective mental experience is not a medium which can qualify as a copy (infringing or otherwise) in copyright law, whereas data recorded in digital media such as computer memory is, so they are not similar circumstances with regard to copyright law, however analogous you might feel they are from some other perspective.
    - votepaunchy 1y ago
      What if there was a camera watching the student read in the library, such that the words could be seen?
      - dragonwriter 1y ago
        That doesn't change anything about the student reading. The recording made by the camera would be a whole different issue.

pessimizer 1y ago

> there's clearly no copyright infringement in a human learning from someone's work and creating their own output, even if it "copies" an artist's style or draws inspiration from someone's plot-line. What do you mean here by "clearly?" This is not at all clear, and court cases have been decided in the opposite direction. This case: https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/marvin-gaye-family-prevails-in-blurred-lines-plagiarism-case-idUSKBN1GX273/ https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/marvin-gaye-family... is as far from what you say is "clearly" true as could possibly be. You're handwaving away the parts of the question that are difficult.

lsaferite 1y ago
But that case involves publishing of content. If you want to compare them, it seems like you'd argue that the content of Pharrell Williams' head is somehow copyright infringement. I've yet to see anyone credible say that an AI model outputting exact content and then someone publishing that should be allowed. If you manage to make an AI model output copyrighted content, you can't then claim it's not copyrighted. If you sit on one side of a table and read a book out loud and I write it down (with minor transcription errors), that content is almost certainly still copyrighted content and I could not distribute it legally.
bloppe 1y ago
In the case you linked, it wasn't infringement for Robin Thicke to be impressed by Marvin Gaye. It was infringement to create a substantial copy. Applying this same legal doctrine to LLMs, it's totally fine for them to train on copyrighted works. A problem would only arise if they produced substantial copies of those works. It may be difficult to quantify the harm done in that case. Robin Thicke sold millions of copies of blurred lines. Each LLM output is generally consumed by a single person. There could be millions of examples of blatant copyright infringement by LLMs that will never come to light in court. There also could be vanishingly few. We may need new regulations to police it.

dragonwriter 1y ago

. If you analogize to human leaning You can't make valid legal analogies to human learning when dealing with copyright law, because human brains are not a fixed media under copyright law, thus impressions in human brains are not copies of any kind under copyright law, thus "well, when you make an impression in the human brain, its not a copyright violation" is never a good legal analogy for when you make something that is in a form which can be a copy under copyright law.

bluefirebrand 1y ago

> For AI training, a central argument is that training is transformative This doesn't actually matter though does it? They still had access to a copy of the data in the first place to train the AI on Since they likely did not pay a license to have access to the books they trained the AI on, then they violated copyright The same way it would be violating copyright for a university student to pirate a textbook and learn from it

aydyn 1y ago
It matters because that is what the plaintiffs are arguing - that the use of copyright material for AI training is not fair use. They are not solely arguing that meta engaged in copyright infringement through piracy.
librarymuch 1y ago
One could argue a student going to a library and reading a book is analogous and legal.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  Information contained in subjective mental experience is not a medium which can qualify as a copy (infringing or otherwise) in copyright law, whereas data recorded in digital media such as computer memory is, so they are not similar circumstances with regard to copyright law, however analogous you might feel they are from some other perspective.
  - votepaunchy 1y ago
    What if there was a camera watching the student read in the library, such that the words could be seen?
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      That doesn't change anything about the student reading. The recording made by the camera would be a whole different issue.