4 ms·

Copyright is the right to make copies. Why is copying during training is any different from producing copies of training data after training? If we're going th

Copyright is the right to make copies. Why is copying during training is any different from producing copies of training data after training? If we're going that way, let me torrent every movie and TV show ever to "train" myself.

foota 2y ago
I don't think this is a reasonable argument. I don't think copyright is actually defined in that sense, but is perhaps more focused on consuming the content. Is an http proxy making a copy of something? What about computing an md5 of it as it's streamed through the proxy? Or maybe counting the words in the thing being served in order to track stats? I'd argue none of these fall under copyright, but each is an incremental step towards what it means to train a model.
- triceratops 2y ago
  > I don't think copyright is actually defined in that sense, but is perhaps more focused on consuming the content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Cos.,_Inc._v._Aereo,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Cos.,_In.... I'm not a legal expert. My layman's understanding of the case above is Aereo was in violation because they made copies of content - content that the receiver was already allowed to access - available over the Internet to the intended receiver. That is to say, the copying was the problem.
  - foota 2y ago
    I'm not a lawyer either, but from the summary a key part of the case seems to be that they were distributing the video to people for them to watch. "Aereo's retransmission of television broadcasts was a "public performance" of the networks' copyrighted work. The Copyright Act of 1976 forbids such performances without the permission of the holder of the copyright. Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. Court membership"
atomicnumber3 2y ago
It's almost like information wants to be free
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
throwawaymaths 2y ago
It depends on your license? I mean strictly speaking if you stream a video you purchase legally over say amazon prime, there's lots of "copying" happening at various levels after those bits leave the data center.
- triceratops 2y ago
  > It depends on your license? Exactly this. Legal copying requires a license.
ants_everywhere 2y ago
You can train yourself with every book at any library. You can also train yourself on a large number of movies and TV shows for a small monthly fee. Where your analogy goes wrong is you're saying you want to "[Circumvent] payment to obtain copyright material for training" to use Workaccount2's words.
- triceratops 2y ago
  So Meta borrowed every book from a library and paid to obtain all of the movies and TV shows? They kept only one copy of every book at any time on their system? Because I'm certainly not allowed to photocopy a library book in its entirety. And I guarantee you a Netflix subscription doesn't allow me to keep a copy of a movie on my hard drive and use it for training man or machine.
  - throwawaymaths 2y ago
    > Because I'm certainly not allowed to photocopy a library book in its entirety. IANAL but that probably falls under fair use? You'll get in trouble if you photocopy the work and sell access to it.
    - 3036e4 2y ago
      Depends on where you live. In Sweden you can make a few copies of almost anything without violating copyright. There are a few exceptions. Copying entire books was added as an exception in 2005. You can still copy parts of a book. How large parts? I don't know, but I once asked for a copy from a library and they said that a few chapters was fine, so maybe that much (I am not a lawyer).
    - triceratops 2y ago
      > but that probably falls under fair use? I've not found case law for that. I've had this same argument on HN multiple times over the past few months.
cgriswald 2y ago
Copyright is defined in law and as the original poster stated, whether this is 'copying' as defined by copyright law is legally ambiguous. Copyright doesn't protect against all forms of duplication. For instance, you own the copyright to your post and grant HN a license to offer copies of it. I have no direct license from you to copy the content of your post; but I can copy it to memory, copy a cache to disk, and make a copy appear on my display.
- kergonath 2y ago
  > For instance, you own the copyright to your post and grant HN a license to offer copies of it. It’s not a good example, because if you grant a license you give them the right to make copies. The problem is not when Meta got licenses, it’s when they did not.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    This line of conversation is not specific to the pirated books but is making claims about AI training in general.

foota 2y ago

I don't think this is a reasonable argument. I don't think copyright is actually defined in that sense, but is perhaps more focused on consuming the content. Is an http proxy making a copy of something? What about computing an md5 of it as it's streamed through the proxy? Or maybe counting the words in the thing being served in order to track stats? I'd argue none of these fall under copyright, but each is an incremental step towards what it means to train a model.

triceratops 2y ago
> I don't think copyright is actually defined in that sense, but is perhaps more focused on consuming the content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Cos.,_Inc._v._Aereo,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Broadcasting_Cos.,_In.... I'm not a legal expert. My layman's understanding of the case above is Aereo was in violation because they made copies of content - content that the receiver was already allowed to access - available over the Internet to the intended receiver. That is to say, the copying was the problem.
- foota 2y ago
  I'm not a lawyer either, but from the summary a key part of the case seems to be that they were distributing the video to people for them to watch. "Aereo's retransmission of television broadcasts was a "public performance" of the networks' copyrighted work. The Copyright Act of 1976 forbids such performances without the permission of the holder of the copyright. Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. Court membership"

atomicnumber3 2y ago

It's almost like information wants to be free

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

throwawaymaths 2y ago

It depends on your license? I mean strictly speaking if you stream a video you purchase legally over say amazon prime, there's lots of "copying" happening at various levels after those bits leave the data center.

triceratops 2y ago
> It depends on your license? Exactly this. Legal copying requires a license.

ants_everywhere 2y ago

You can train yourself with every book at any library. You can also train yourself on a large number of movies and TV shows for a small monthly fee. Where your analogy goes wrong is you're saying you want to "[Circumvent] payment to obtain copyright material for training" to use Workaccount2's words.

triceratops 2y ago
So Meta borrowed every book from a library and paid to obtain all of the movies and TV shows? They kept only one copy of every book at any time on their system? Because I'm certainly not allowed to photocopy a library book in its entirety. And I guarantee you a Netflix subscription doesn't allow me to keep a copy of a movie on my hard drive and use it for training man or machine.
- throwawaymaths 2y ago
  > Because I'm certainly not allowed to photocopy a library book in its entirety. IANAL but that probably falls under fair use? You'll get in trouble if you photocopy the work and sell access to it.
  - 3036e4 2y ago
    Depends on where you live. In Sweden you can make a few copies of almost anything without violating copyright. There are a few exceptions. Copying entire books was added as an exception in 2005. You can still copy parts of a book. How large parts? I don't know, but I once asked for a copy from a library and they said that a few chapters was fine, so maybe that much (I am not a lawyer).
  - triceratops 2y ago
    > but that probably falls under fair use? I've not found case law for that. I've had this same argument on HN multiple times over the past few months.

cgriswald 2y ago

Copyright is defined in law and as the original poster stated, whether this is 'copying' as defined by copyright law is legally ambiguous. Copyright doesn't protect against all forms of duplication. For instance, you own the copyright to your post and grant HN a license to offer copies of it. I have no direct license from you to copy the content of your post; but I can copy it to memory, copy a cache to disk, and make a copy appear on my display.

kergonath 2y ago
> For instance, you own the copyright to your post and grant HN a license to offer copies of it. It’s not a good example, because if you grant a license you give them the right to make copies. The problem is not when Meta got licenses, it’s when they did not.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  This line of conversation is not specific to the pirated books but is making claims about AI training in general.