4 ms·

Then why folks were arrested for filming in the cinemas? I don't think that's how the law works [1]: > 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works > Subject to

Then why folks were arrested for filming in the cinemas? I don't think that's how the law works [1]: > 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works > Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: > (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; And later: > 501. Infringement of copyright > (a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A(a), ..., is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be. To me it seems clear that Zuckerberg violated author's exclusive right to reproduce copyrighted works. The law doesn't say it is ok to do if nobody knows about it. For curious, what is considered a "copy": > “Copies” are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term “copies” includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed. So an SSD with LLM weights should also be considered a "copy" if from them the work can be "reproduced". [1] https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106 https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106

nashashmi 1y ago
The last excerpt is key: copies are things by which something can be reproduced even with the aid of a machine. Can you get the LLM to reproduce the work? If yes, that would be a copy. On the point of what Zuck did, The law states what is prohibited and what exceptions are made against the prohibition, not necessarily what is permitted. If the work cannot be reproduced, then it is not a copy. As for the cinema part, an argument can be made that the person conspired to reproduce the work. And rule declarations are made that you can’t use video recording device in the theater.
johanyc 1y ago
Verbatim is not the point. “Transformative” is. You added nothing to the work when you film a movie at the theater. Google Books (Authors Guild v. Google, 2015) literally shows you photocopies of the pages but is considered transformative and fair use because they offer an easily searchable digital database (and also not harming the book selling market).

nashashmi 1y ago

The last excerpt is key: copies are things by which something can be reproduced even with the aid of a machine. Can you get the LLM to reproduce the work? If yes, that would be a copy. On the point of what Zuck did, The law states what is prohibited and what exceptions are made against the prohibition, not necessarily what is permitted. If the work cannot be reproduced, then it is not a copy. As for the cinema part, an argument can be made that the person conspired to reproduce the work. And rule declarations are made that you can’t use video recording device in the theater.

johanyc 1y ago

Verbatim is not the point. “Transformative” is. You added nothing to the work when you film a movie at the theater. Google Books (Authors Guild v. Google, 2015) literally shows you photocopies of the pages but is considered transformative and fair use because they offer an easily searchable digital database (and also not harming the book selling market).