3 ms·

LLM training is not fair use. It would cost trillions to genuinely secure the rights to use any data set that could include any excerpts of copyrighted work. T

by myhf 1y ago

LLM training is not fair use. It would cost trillions to genuinely secure the rights to use any data set that could include any excerpts of copyrighted work. The millions and billions you hear about in copyright "settlements" are just the amount it takes to bribe a local court, so $10MM is reasonable for Australia.

danielbln 1y ago
I don't think it has been settled yet of training is fair use or not. Also, how is a settlement a bribed court? The other party has to accept a settlement, not the judge.
- gpm 1y ago
  > The other party has to accept a settlement, not the judge. Not to defend the absurd statement about a bribe, but with regards to the $1.5 billion dollar settlement this isn't quite true. Because it's a class action the judge will also have to approve the settlement - finding that it was fair and agreed to without collusion. This is done because the incentive structures set up a bit of a conflict of interest between class action lawyers and members of the class... Of course none of the settlement goes to the judge or court, there's no bribing going on. But judges do reject class action settlements sometimes.
  - apparent 1y ago
    You're right to point out that a judge's sign-off is also required, but it's a necessary-but-not-sufficient condition. The point GP was presumably trying to make was that bribing a judge doesn't get the job done. The first task is to convince the other side.
rpdillon 1y ago
The earlier Anthropic case found that training was fair use. Anthropic got slammed for how they obtained the digital copies, not how they used them. > June 24 (Reuters) - A federal judge in San Francisco ruled late on Monday that Anthropic's use of books without permission to train its artificial intelligence system was legal under U.S. copyright law. Siding with tech companies on a pivotal question for the AI industry, U.S. District Judge William Alsup said Anthropic made "fair use", opens new tab of books by writers Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber and Kirk Wallace Johnson to train its Claude large language model. https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/anthropic-wins-key-ruling-ai-authors-copyright-lawsuit-2025-06-24/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/anthropic-wins-key-...
- nutjob2 1y ago
  That hardly settles the fair use question. There are other cases that will address that question and will be appealed to higher courts where it will be settled, unless overridden by legislation.
  - rpdillon 1y ago
    The law lives. The current ruling is fair use. Yes, it could change, but it's not like no courts have looked at or ruled on this.

by myhf 1y ago

danielbln 1y ago

I don't think it has been settled yet of training is fair use or not. Also, how is a settlement a bribed court? The other party has to accept a settlement, not the judge.

gpm 1y ago
> The other party has to accept a settlement, not the judge. Not to defend the absurd statement about a bribe, but with regards to the $1.5 billion dollar settlement this isn't quite true. Because it's a class action the judge will also have to approve the settlement - finding that it was fair and agreed to without collusion. This is done because the incentive structures set up a bit of a conflict of interest between class action lawyers and members of the class... Of course none of the settlement goes to the judge or court, there's no bribing going on. But judges do reject class action settlements sometimes.
- apparent 1y ago
  You're right to point out that a judge's sign-off is also required, but it's a necessary-but-not-sufficient condition. The point GP was presumably trying to make was that bribing a judge doesn't get the job done. The first task is to convince the other side.

rpdillon 1y ago

The earlier Anthropic case found that training was fair use. Anthropic got slammed for how they obtained the digital copies, not how they used them. > June 24 (Reuters) - A federal judge in San Francisco ruled late on Monday that Anthropic's use of books without permission to train its artificial intelligence system was legal under U.S. copyright law. Siding with tech companies on a pivotal question for the AI industry, U.S. District Judge William Alsup said Anthropic made "fair use", opens new tab of books by writers Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber and Kirk Wallace Johnson to train its Claude large language model. https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/anthropic-wins-key-ruling-ai-authors-copyright-lawsuit-2025-06-24/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/anthropic-wins-key-...

nutjob2 1y ago
That hardly settles the fair use question. There are other cases that will address that question and will be appealed to higher courts where it will be settled, unless overridden by legislation.
- rpdillon 1y ago
  The law lives. The current ruling is fair use. Yes, it could change, but it's not like no courts have looked at or ruled on this.