3 ms·

Just read (most) of the ruling. The ruling is fine. The judge is not Alsop but he’s not technically incompetent either, which is good. The torrent comments in

Just read (most) of the ruling. The ruling is fine. The judge is not Alsop but he’s not technically incompetent either, which is good. The torrent comments in general are nothing to get het up about; in summary 1) Meta wanted to download but not upload libgen and Anna’s after they couldn’t find anyone with rights to license that would talk to them. 2) they didn't want to distribute; just download. An engineer put in evidence that they restricted seeding successfully. 3) late in the case Silverman et al claimed while they hadnt been seeding they had been leeching and that counts as distribution (?!) Judge commented as follows 1. just downloading is probably fine because it could be for purposes of fair use, and fair use concerns generally trump even good faith and fair dealing 2. Nobody could get llama to spit out more than a 60 token quote from a plaintiff book; thus llama is not made for infringement 3. We will need more briefing on this leeching thing which it is alleged is a form of distribution. The judge lays out what he thinks a workable claim to get to the supreme court would be, which is that these llms defeat the purpose of our copyright laws by reducing the amount of human creativity and expression available to those who want to create economic value through creativity. Eg where will the jobs for biographers go? I will say that debate is an active topic worldwide right now and a good question, with answers ranging from: “this maximizes human creativity bro” to “laser printers disrupted lead type foundries, that was great” to “nobody will ever write again and we are murdering our creative class and burning down their craftsman mid century modern homes.” It seems to me this will get taken up next session with SCOTUS but also that it’s a little early; we just don’t know where this is going exactly. Either way, I expect our current judge will learn that leeching is precisely NOT seeding once the defense legal team has time to brief him.

bilekas 1y ago
> 1. just downloading is probably fine because it could be for purposes of fair use, and fair use concerns generally trump even good faith and fair dealing This smells a bit strange to me, it's a "for-profit" company.. Fair use is a bit of pipe-dream here. Also there is no conditions on the source of the content ? If the source was obtained from illegal sources IE illegal distribution of copyrighted materials does that not play a part ? Also will this set a precedent that if I download HBO's collection but don't seed or use for any commercial reasons it will be considered Fair Use ? This whole thing just reeks of "rules for thee but not for me".
- bawolff 1y ago
  > This smells a bit strange to me, it's a "for-profit" company.. Fair use is a bit of pipe-dream here Why do you think that? For-profit companies use fair use all the time. Its not unusual. Yes, a usage being non-commercial can be a factor in favour of fair use, but its just one factor. Its definitely not a neccesary condition nor is it a sufficient condition. > If the source was obtained from illegal sources IE illegal distribution of copyrighted materials does that not play a part ? Why would it? That isn't really how copyright works. Its about the right to "copy" (or not to), not about distribution methods. > Also will this set a precedent that if I download HBO's collection but don't seed or use for any commercial reasons it will be considered Fair Use ? No. That's not the reason this is potentially fair use. [Although as an aside it uses to be in Canada that only uploading was illegal].
  - bilekas 1y ago
    > Why would it? That isn't really how copyright works. Its about the right to "copy" (or not to), not about distribution methods. Okay, but if there was no permission to "copy" the content by the owners. I wish I knew more about it all, but seems to me that quoting a snippet from a book while offering comment on it would be classic fair use. Consuming the entire collection for free to charge for transformative services really doesn't feel 'fair'. And again I can't shake the feeling that if I did this, was brought to court. I would be laughed at for claiming fair use.
  - Lio 1y ago
    My (limited) understanding was that in the USA it was not illegal to read a book you don't own but it is illegal to make a copy (download) of a book you don't own. I still don't fully grok how Meta can legally download a pirated book as fair use when an individual doing the same would be deemed a criminal act. It would seem that Meta still don't have the right to make copies of books that they haven't paid for no matter what they do with it.
    - vessenes 1y ago
      It's because in the US, you are granted the right to copy (copyright) broadly and under a number of circumstances. The creator is given a right to prevent copying under a limited (albeit very broad) set of circumstances. Since we have a usage based assessment system on the major chip in the right to prevent copying, "fair use", which by the way is designed specifically for the common good -- enhancing the overall value to society of works that are limited by their creators -- its not about the copying. Its about the usage. Reading by an llm is fair usage in this case according to this judge's early speculations.
hulitu 1y ago
> 1. just downloading is probably fine because it could be for purposes of fair use, and fair use concerns generally trump even good faith and fair dealing Hello MPAA, RIAA ? Where are you now ? Twenty years ago they were screaming bloody murder for such things. But i guess, being a "pirate", is one thing, being a business man, is another.

bilekas 1y ago

> 1. just downloading is probably fine because it could be for purposes of fair use, and fair use concerns generally trump even good faith and fair dealing This smells a bit strange to me, it's a "for-profit" company.. Fair use is a bit of pipe-dream here. Also there is no conditions on the source of the content ? If the source was obtained from illegal sources IE illegal distribution of copyrighted materials does that not play a part ? Also will this set a precedent that if I download HBO's collection but don't seed or use for any commercial reasons it will be considered Fair Use ? This whole thing just reeks of "rules for thee but not for me".

bawolff 1y ago
> This smells a bit strange to me, it's a "for-profit" company.. Fair use is a bit of pipe-dream here Why do you think that? For-profit companies use fair use all the time. Its not unusual. Yes, a usage being non-commercial can be a factor in favour of fair use, but its just one factor. Its definitely not a neccesary condition nor is it a sufficient condition. > If the source was obtained from illegal sources IE illegal distribution of copyrighted materials does that not play a part ? Why would it? That isn't really how copyright works. Its about the right to "copy" (or not to), not about distribution methods. > Also will this set a precedent that if I download HBO's collection but don't seed or use for any commercial reasons it will be considered Fair Use ? No. That's not the reason this is potentially fair use. [Although as an aside it uses to be in Canada that only uploading was illegal].
- bilekas 1y ago
  > Why would it? That isn't really how copyright works. Its about the right to "copy" (or not to), not about distribution methods. Okay, but if there was no permission to "copy" the content by the owners. I wish I knew more about it all, but seems to me that quoting a snippet from a book while offering comment on it would be classic fair use. Consuming the entire collection for free to charge for transformative services really doesn't feel 'fair'. And again I can't shake the feeling that if I did this, was brought to court. I would be laughed at for claiming fair use.
- Lio 1y ago
  My (limited) understanding was that in the USA it was not illegal to read a book you don't own but it is illegal to make a copy (download) of a book you don't own. I still don't fully grok how Meta can legally download a pirated book as fair use when an individual doing the same would be deemed a criminal act. It would seem that Meta still don't have the right to make copies of books that they haven't paid for no matter what they do with it.
  - vessenes 1y ago
    It's because in the US, you are granted the right to copy (copyright) broadly and under a number of circumstances. The creator is given a right to prevent copying under a limited (albeit very broad) set of circumstances. Since we have a usage based assessment system on the major chip in the right to prevent copying, "fair use", which by the way is designed specifically for the common good -- enhancing the overall value to society of works that are limited by their creators -- its not about the copying. Its about the usage. Reading by an llm is fair usage in this case according to this judge's early speculations.

hulitu 1y ago

> 1. just downloading is probably fine because it could be for purposes of fair use, and fair use concerns generally trump even good faith and fair dealing Hello MPAA, RIAA ? Where are you now ? Twenty years ago they were screaming bloody murder for such things. But i guess, being a "pirate", is one thing, being a business man, is another.