4 ms·

Broadly speaking, GPL is a license that has specific provisions about creating derivative software from the licensed work, and just saying "fair use" doesn't ex

by advael 6mo ago

Broadly speaking, GPL is a license that has specific provisions about creating derivative software from the licensed work, and just saying "fair use" doesn't exempt you from those provisions. More specifically, an advertised use case (in fact, arguably the main one at this stage) of the most popular closed models as they're currently being used is to produce code, some of which is going to be GPL licensed. As such, the code used is part of the functionality of the program. The fact that this program was produced from the source code used by a machine learning algorithm rather than some other method doesn't change this fundamental fact. The current supreme court may think that machine learning is some sort of magic exception, but they also seem to believe whatever oligarchs will bribe them to believe. Again, I doubt the law will be enforced as written, but that has more to do with corruption than any meaningful legal theory. Arguments against this claim seem to ignore that courts have already ruled these systems to not have intellectual property rights of their own, and the argument for fair use seems to rely pretty heavily on some handwavey anthropomorphization of the models.

mr_toad 6mo ago
> Broadly speaking, GPL is a license that has specific provisions about creating derivative software from the licensed work, and just saying "fair use" doesn't exempt you from those provisions. Broadly speaking, yes it does. The whole point of fair use is that you don’t need a license.
- davemp 6mo ago
  Claiming LLMs are fair use is ridiculous bordering on ignorant or disingenuous. Here’s the 4 part test from 17 U.S.C. § 107: 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; Fail. The use is to make trillions of dollars and be maximally disruptive. 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; Fail. In many cases at least, the copy written code is commercial or otherwise supports livelihoods; and is the result much high skill labor with the express stipulation for reciprocity. 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and Fail. They use all of it. 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Fail to the extreme. There is already measurable decline in these markets. The leaders explicitly state that they want to put knowledge workers out of business. - - - Hell, LLMs don’t even pass the sniff test. The only reason this stuff is being entertained is some combination of the prisoner’s dilemma and more classic greed.
  - luma 6mo ago
    You’re mixing up “using” with “copying”. You are allowed to “use” all of a book or movie or code by listening to or watching or reviewing the whole thing. Copyright protects copies. The legal claim here is than training an LLM is sufficiently transformative such that it cannot be construed as a copy.
    - davemp 6mo ago
      I replied to someone saying that it’s fair use, which presupposes that it’s a derivative work.
  - joshuacc 6mo ago
    These are factors to be considered, not pass/fail questions.
  - cxr 6mo ago
    This comment highlights a basic dilemma about how and where to spend your time. Here's a basic rule of thumb I recommend people apply when it comes to these sorts of long, contentious threads where you know that not every person showing up to the conversation is limiting themselves to commenting about things they understand and that involve some of the most tortured motivated reasoning about legal topics: If the topic is copyright and someone who is speaking authoritatively has just used the words "copy written", then ignore them. Consider whether you need to be anywhere in the conversation at all, even as a purely passive observer. Think about all the things you can do instead of wasting your time here, where the stakes for participation are so low because nothing that is said here really matters. Go do something productive.
    - davemp 6mo ago
      Yet you still wasted your own time and everyone else’s time with a reply that has even less substance. I was making an argument based on quotes from the actual legal code and you’re saying pions who don’t use the exact correct terminology shouldn’t even consider what should or shouldn’t be legal? What a load of junk. This is a democracy. We’re supposed to be engaging with it.

by advael 6mo ago

mr_toad 6mo ago

> Broadly speaking, GPL is a license that has specific provisions about creating derivative software from the licensed work, and just saying "fair use" doesn't exempt you from those provisions. Broadly speaking, yes it does. The whole point of fair use is that you don’t need a license.

davemp 6mo ago
Claiming LLMs are fair use is ridiculous bordering on ignorant or disingenuous. Here’s the 4 part test from 17 U.S.C. § 107: 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; Fail. The use is to make trillions of dollars and be maximally disruptive. 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; Fail. In many cases at least, the copy written code is commercial or otherwise supports livelihoods; and is the result much high skill labor with the express stipulation for reciprocity. 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and Fail. They use all of it. 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Fail to the extreme. There is already measurable decline in these markets. The leaders explicitly state that they want to put knowledge workers out of business. - - - Hell, LLMs don’t even pass the sniff test. The only reason this stuff is being entertained is some combination of the prisoner’s dilemma and more classic greed.
- luma 6mo ago
  You’re mixing up “using” with “copying”. You are allowed to “use” all of a book or movie or code by listening to or watching or reviewing the whole thing. Copyright protects copies. The legal claim here is than training an LLM is sufficiently transformative such that it cannot be construed as a copy.
  - davemp 6mo ago
    I replied to someone saying that it’s fair use, which presupposes that it’s a derivative work.
- joshuacc 6mo ago
  These are factors to be considered, not pass/fail questions.
- cxr 6mo ago
  This comment highlights a basic dilemma about how and where to spend your time. Here's a basic rule of thumb I recommend people apply when it comes to these sorts of long, contentious threads where you know that not every person showing up to the conversation is limiting themselves to commenting about things they understand and that involve some of the most tortured motivated reasoning about legal topics: If the topic is copyright and someone who is speaking authoritatively has just used the words "copy written", then ignore them. Consider whether you need to be anywhere in the conversation at all, even as a purely passive observer. Think about all the things you can do instead of wasting your time here, where the stakes for participation are so low because nothing that is said here really matters. Go do something productive.
  - davemp 6mo ago
    Yet you still wasted your own time and everyone else’s time with a reply that has even less substance. I was making an argument based on quotes from the actual legal code and you’re saying pions who don’t use the exact correct terminology shouldn’t even consider what should or shouldn’t be legal? What a load of junk. This is a democracy. We’re supposed to be engaging with it.