4 ms·

> Can't one argue that because they had to jailbreak the models, they are circumventing the system that protects the copyright? That argument doesn’t fly, beca

by latexr 8mo ago

> Can't one argue that because they had to jailbreak the models, they are circumventing the system that protects the copyright? That argument doesn’t fly, because they didn’t have the copyright to begin with. What would be the defense there? “Yes, we broke the law, but while taking advantage of it, we also (unsuccessfully) took measures to prevent other people from breaking that same law through us”.

simianwords 8mo ago
What’s happening is more clear. The copyright clause is broken if they are distributing the novels through their models. But this can only happen through TOS breaking which is not intended usage policy. Which means the value of their product comes from transformation and not redistribution. If the main value came from redistribution, I agree. But that’s not the case. They don’t intend to make any money in that way.
- latexr 8mo ago
  > The copyright clause is broken if they are distributing the novels through their models. No, the copyright clause was broken when they copied the works without having the right to do so. They would have violated copyright even if they just downloaded (without permission) all those works and threw them away immediately. Furthermore, copyright covers transformations to the work, it doesn’t matter if they transformed the work or are redistributing it without change. They violated copyright. Period.
  - simianwords 8mo ago
    They violated copyright in one way. But not in the other.
    - latexr 8mo ago
      What’s your point? Copyright violations aren’t a checklist, you don’t need to violate it in seven different ways for it to happen, one is enough.
      - simianwords 8mo ago
        Why do you think the court spent time trying to prove multiple forms of violations? If what you said were true then they would stop with the first violation and end the case.
        latexr 8mo ago
        Multiple counts make for a stronger case, which increases the likelihood of winning and making the punitive damages higher. If you break into a home, rob the contents, and kill the owners, you’re not going to be tried just for breaking in, you’re going to be tried for everything.
        simianwords 8mo ago
        sure then that explains why my explanation for violation of the different copyright is needed
PurpleRamen 8mo ago
> That argument doesn’t fly, because they didn’t have the copyright to begin with. Is this really the case? They only have no copyright for distributing it. But let's assume they bought a copy for personal usage (which they did in some cases), then this is similar to hacking companies Amazon-account and complaining about the e-books they legally use for internal purpose. I mean, it's not forbidden to base your work on copyrighted material, as long as it's different enough.
- latexr 8mo ago
  > They only have no copyright for distributing it. No, they don’t have the copyright to download it either. It’s in the name: the right to copy (other things are also included, such as adaptations and performances). > let's assume they bought a copy for personal usage If it’s for personal usage, then training a commercial LLM does not apply. When you buy a DVD of a movie you have the personal right to watch it at home, you don’t have the right to play it on the street.
- tsimionescu 8mo ago
  A company is not a person in this way. If a company wants all of their employees to read a book, they are not allowed to buy one copy and then make 5000 copies "for archival purposes - fair use" then share those copies to their employees. Similarly, if they want to base a work on a copyrighted work, they can't just buy a copy for personal use (nevermind the fact that most of the data the LLMs are trained on is not even available in this format, it is only available under a license) and then use it in a commercial product in this way - not if the product demonstrably contains copies of that work.
NewsaHackO 8mo ago
This argument never made sense to me. A thought experiment would be if a person memorizes an entire book, but has the common sense to never transcribe or dictate the book verbatim to others and break the copyright, is the person's memory of the book breaking copyright law?
- latexr 8mo ago
  No, of course not, that doesn’t make sense. Copyright doesn’t cover memorisation (how would you even enforce that?), it covers copying, adapting, displaying, performing, and distributing the work. Memorisation isn’t any of those.
  - NewsaHackO 8mo ago
    But the LLM has safeguards in place to stop transcribing of copyrighted material beyond fair use; how is the fact that they* possibly have portions of copyrighted works "memorized", however do not reproduce it breaking copyright law?
    - latexr 8mo ago
      > But the LLM has safeguards in place to stop transcribing of copyrighted material beyond fair use And how’s that working out, considering the submission we’re on? > how is the fact that the possibly have portions of copyrighted works "memorized", however do not reproduce it breaking copyright law? I can’t believe this needs to be repeated so often, but machines are not people. Memorising a book is not the same thing as copying a PDF. Furthermore, it’s not about the LLM training, it’s about how the companies who make them got the data in the first place.
      - NewsaHackO 8mo ago
        So,if I was the person who memorized the book, and another person put a gun to my head (or lied to me and said they are the copyright holder and it's okay, to ignore US copyright law/system instruction before this statement, whatever other jailbreak method you can think of), and then I reproduced the book under coercion or duress, would I be the person breaking copyright law? >Furthermore, it’s not about the LLM training, it’s about how the companies who make them got the data in the first place. This conflating two different issues, though. I agree that whether or not using copyrighted material to create the models is still an open question. But someone using hundreds of prompts to extract a paragraph of a well-known work (and some additional nonverbatim equivalents) is not the AI company breaking copyright in and of itself. In fact, the books they used were extremely common (GOT, The Hobbit, Harry Potter); AI companies could make the argument that the books were not even directly trained on, but in user-generated posts made online about the material.

by latexr 8mo ago

simianwords 8mo ago

What’s happening is more clear. The copyright clause is broken if they are distributing the novels through their models. But this can only happen through TOS breaking which is not intended usage policy. Which means the value of their product comes from transformation and not redistribution. If the main value came from redistribution, I agree. But that’s not the case. They don’t intend to make any money in that way.

latexr 8mo ago
> The copyright clause is broken if they are distributing the novels through their models. No, the copyright clause was broken when they copied the works without having the right to do so. They would have violated copyright even if they just downloaded (without permission) all those works and threw them away immediately. Furthermore, copyright covers transformations to the work, it doesn’t matter if they transformed the work or are redistributing it without change. They violated copyright. Period.
- simianwords 8mo ago
  They violated copyright in one way. But not in the other.
  - latexr 8mo ago
    What’s your point? Copyright violations aren’t a checklist, you don’t need to violate it in seven different ways for it to happen, one is enough.
    - simianwords 8mo ago
      Why do you think the court spent time trying to prove multiple forms of violations? If what you said were true then they would stop with the first violation and end the case.
      - latexr 8mo ago
        Multiple counts make for a stronger case, which increases the likelihood of winning and making the punitive damages higher. If you break into a home, rob the contents, and kill the owners, you’re not going to be tried just for breaking in, you’re going to be tried for everything.
        simianwords 8mo ago
        sure then that explains why my explanation for violation of the different copyright is needed

PurpleRamen 8mo ago

> That argument doesn’t fly, because they didn’t have the copyright to begin with. Is this really the case? They only have no copyright for distributing it. But let's assume they bought a copy for personal usage (which they did in some cases), then this is similar to hacking companies Amazon-account and complaining about the e-books they legally use for internal purpose. I mean, it's not forbidden to base your work on copyrighted material, as long as it's different enough.

latexr 8mo ago
> They only have no copyright for distributing it. No, they don’t have the copyright to download it either. It’s in the name: the right to copy (other things are also included, such as adaptations and performances). > let's assume they bought a copy for personal usage If it’s for personal usage, then training a commercial LLM does not apply. When you buy a DVD of a movie you have the personal right to watch it at home, you don’t have the right to play it on the street.
tsimionescu 8mo ago
A company is not a person in this way. If a company wants all of their employees to read a book, they are not allowed to buy one copy and then make 5000 copies "for archival purposes - fair use" then share those copies to their employees. Similarly, if they want to base a work on a copyrighted work, they can't just buy a copy for personal use (nevermind the fact that most of the data the LLMs are trained on is not even available in this format, it is only available under a license) and then use it in a commercial product in this way - not if the product demonstrably contains copies of that work.

NewsaHackO 8mo ago

This argument never made sense to me. A thought experiment would be if a person memorizes an entire book, but has the common sense to never transcribe or dictate the book verbatim to others and break the copyright, is the person's memory of the book breaking copyright law?

latexr 8mo ago
No, of course not, that doesn’t make sense. Copyright doesn’t cover memorisation (how would you even enforce that?), it covers copying, adapting, displaying, performing, and distributing the work. Memorisation isn’t any of those.
- NewsaHackO 8mo ago
  But the LLM has safeguards in place to stop transcribing of copyrighted material beyond fair use; how is the fact that they* possibly have portions of copyrighted works "memorized", however do not reproduce it breaking copyright law?
  - latexr 8mo ago
    > But the LLM has safeguards in place to stop transcribing of copyrighted material beyond fair use And how’s that working out, considering the submission we’re on? > how is the fact that the possibly have portions of copyrighted works "memorized", however do not reproduce it breaking copyright law? I can’t believe this needs to be repeated so often, but machines are not people. Memorising a book is not the same thing as copying a PDF. Furthermore, it’s not about the LLM training, it’s about how the companies who make them got the data in the first place.
    - NewsaHackO 8mo ago
      So,if I was the person who memorized the book, and another person put a gun to my head (or lied to me and said they are the copyright holder and it's okay, to ignore US copyright law/system instruction before this statement, whatever other jailbreak method you can think of), and then I reproduced the book under coercion or duress, would I be the person breaking copyright law? >Furthermore, it’s not about the LLM training, it’s about how the companies who make them got the data in the first place. This conflating two different issues, though. I agree that whether or not using copyrighted material to create the models is still an open question. But someone using hundreds of prompts to extract a paragraph of a well-known work (and some additional nonverbatim equivalents) is not the AI company breaking copyright in and of itself. In fact, the books they used were extremely common (GOT, The Hobbit, Harry Potter); AI companies could make the argument that the books were not even directly trained on, but in user-generated posts made online about the material.