8 ms·

Funny how people are suddenly on Elsevier's side. It's clear to me that AI training is transformative fair use under existing law. Maybe this will be the case t

Funny how people are suddenly on Elsevier's side. It's clear to me that AI training is transformative fair use under existing law. Maybe this will be the case to prove it.

eloisius 5mo ago
I find it grating that so many AI boosters try to frame pushing back against the AI industry as a sudden about-face for everyone that spent the last 20 years pushing back against the copyright industry. I’m also in favor of decriminalizing or legalizing small amounts of pot for personal use. That doesn’t mean I’m behind industrialized narcotic production on such a huge scale that it that it starts to distort the economy, and companies looking for new ways to add methamphetamine to every goddamn product.
- 2ndorderthought 5mo ago
  Speaking of ai and meth, have you seen videos of the palantir CEO Alex karp? Dude looks like he's regularly getting the same meth shots Hitler used to get. But I hear you. One of my biggest tells that someone can't be reasoned with is when they resort to whataboutism without any consideration for how 2 situations can actually be different even if there is some commonality. It's a powerful bad faith argument technique. When that style of argument comes up I nod my head and walk away. Some people are just doomed.
  - chungusamongus 5mo ago
    [flagged]
    - 2ndorderthought 5mo ago
      I am not s copyright maximalist, but I would tell you be careful of a world where copyright and IP is meaningless. Might as well let any other country/company one shot your entire industry.
      - chungusamongus 5mo ago
        Slippery slope, false dilemma, etc. What other fallacies do you have in your utility belt, batman?
        2ndorderthought 5mo ago
        How did you know I was Bruce wayne?
        malfist 5mo ago
        Where's my goddamn electric car Bruce?
        2ndorderthought 5mo ago
        BYD sells them for super cheap.
- dfxm12 5mo ago
  It would be disingenuous framing because the argument against copyright stems from a belief that information should be free. Meta does not do things in this spirit. There's no about face needed...
  - AnthonyMouse 5mo ago
    > It would be disingenuous framing because the argument against copyright stems from a belief that information should be free. Meta does not do things in this spirit. Don't they? They release the llama model weights, they do things like this: https://www.opencompute.org/wiki/Open_Rack/SpecsAndDesigns https://www.opencompute.org/wiki/Open_Rack/SpecsAndDesigns They also make significant contributions to Linux and are the originators of popular open source projects like zstd and React. They make their money from selling ads, not selling licenses.
    - xigoi 5mo ago
      They only released the weights because someone leaked them.
      - AnthonyMouse 5mo ago
        Someone leaked the llama 1 weights before they were released. That doesn't explain why they would release the subsequent versions except that they wanted to.
- protocolture 5mo ago
  >I find it grating that so many AI boosters try to frame pushing back against the AI industry as a sudden about-face for everyone that spent the last 20 years pushing back against the copyright industry. What do you think the outcome of tightening fair use is going to be? Do you think its going to be most effectual against these big evil AI companies we are meant to fear? Or is it going to end up putting more individual creators on the end of Disneys pitchforks? Like if you support creating a gun to kill a monster, that's great. But you need to understand that weapons rarely only target the person you want them to. And its unlikely that any bill that specifically targets a certain size or profit margin is going to make it all the way into law without being generalised to the approval of large IP holders. Its much much (much) better to look at this as an opportunity to erode IP laws for everyone, than to make them worse and hope that your particular enemies are the only ones that are affected. >That doesn’t mean I’m behind industrialized narcotic production on such a huge scale that it that it starts to distort the economy, and companies looking for new ways to add methamphetamine to every goddamn product. Thats such a non sequitur. This isnt a weed legalisation argument, its "Do we make IP worse for everyone, because you dont like some people benefiting from fair use".
  - citadel_melon 5mo ago
    One could imagine a different legal standards for recreational, research, and commercial uses.
    - warkdarrior 5mo ago
      > One could imagine a different legal standards for recreational, research, and commercial uses. Meta used allegedly stolen copyrighted materials to train a model they shared for free with the whole world. Is this a recreational use?
      - watwut 5mo ago
        No it is not recreational use. And no, they are not freely sharing it. It is use to build a monopoly, make hones competition impossible and plan charge as much possible on it. It is the same playbook everytime. We dont have to be naive and pretend meta is doing something for other peoples benefit.
- butlike 5mo ago
  Tell me more about these methamphetamine products. Inquiring minds would like to know!
conception 5mo ago
Illegally obtaining copyrighted materials is usually the issue not the transformation part
- akerl_ 5mo ago
  Looking at the complaint ( https://publishers.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-05-05-Complaint.pdf https://publishers.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-05-05... ), that seems like the part that's got the most solid foundation, especially given that while torrenting the books, they were also seeding to other peers. The items they call out around training the models (and attempting to claim that each subsequent model generation should count as an additional instance of infringement) seem far less grounded in the current court interpretations of AI training.
King-Aaron 5mo ago
Absorb all "our" IP without consent, in doing so remove "our" own source of revenue, and then repackage it as their own product. Not really fair use IMO.
- visarga 5mo ago
  How does that work? Is it a kind of infringement without substantial similarity?
  - King-Aaron 5mo ago
    I find it hard to think of a reasonable analogy. But it's like coming into your house, stealing all your belongings, and then building a new house with all your shit inside and then selling it back to you.
nadermx 5mo ago
I also find it funny, I said this regarding the other thread and article[0] '"They then copied those stolen fruits" How are these fruits "stolen" if they still have what was allegedley stolen? Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985): The Supreme Court ruled that the unauthorized sale of phonorecords of copyrighted musical compositions does not constitute "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" goods under the National Stolen Property Act And even if, arguendo, sure its stolen. The purpose of copyright is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" And you would be hard pressed to prove that LLM's haven't advanced the arts and sciences, so at bare minimum transformative, ie fair use.' [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48026207#48029072 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48026207#48029072
- 2ndorderthought 5mo ago
  Cool cool cool. So all the code and data you send to anthropic and chatgpt should be mass distributable to forward other peoples arts and science? All your meeting notes with ai summarizers, slack chats with bots? Might as well put your entire company and all plans for it on github mit licensed. Ill take a peek, see if there's anything valuable to me in that. Don't worry you can keep it all on your github too. It's still yours afterall. Copilot will be training on it too though btw
  - IAmLiterallyAB 5mo ago
    That's a privacy violation, not relevant.
    - 2ndorderthought 5mo ago
      No it's not. You exposed that data to an LLM. Should have read the fine print. The laws around that don't make sense to me anymore so therefore I own that stuff now. That's how this works right? You do know chatgpt etc can read everything you write, right? Also social media profile pics. Great way to get faces for deep fake ads. Most people are just 1 phone call away from being voice cloned. Our likeness isn't all that important either if you think about it. Maybe meta will clone your writing style and sign into your meta account and message your friends telling them about this awesome new product. Meta owns the account and you uploaded data to it.
whattheheckheck 5mo ago
If i could ask for a summary from an llm vs buy a book id go with the summary. That eats into commercial use and the supreme court case sided with Gerald Ford when a newspaper published a small gist of his autobiography because it ate into the sales
- 2ndorderthought 5mo ago
  Yea nope. I like the full book without any loss of information. Even if I don't want to read the entire book. LLMs love to respond even when something is outside of their training set.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
- Larrikin 5mo ago
  Every single Wikipedia article of a book or TV show has this summary. Ford should have lost.
  - whattheheckheck 5mo ago
    Probably, Educational purposes is strong component of fair use doctrine
stackghost 5mo ago
I'm not on Elsevier's side, but I still think it's bullshit that giant companies are allowed to do things at a scale that I'd go to prison for.
- platevoltage 5mo ago
  That's always going to be true for the Capitalist class.
  - stackghost 5mo ago
    And yet I continue to rage against the dying of the light.
rvz 5mo ago
> It's clear to me that AI training is transformative fair use under existing law. Maybe this will be the case to prove it. That is not what this case is about. It is more about the illegal violation and piracy of copyrighted content done by Meta for commercial use and Zuck knew they were doing it. Why did Anthropic settle [0] with a multi-billion dollar payout to authors after commercializing their LLMs that was trained off of copyrighted content that was illegally obtained and kept without the authors permission? There's a reason why they (Anthropic) did not want it to go to trial. (Anthropic knew they would lose and it would completely bankrupt them in the hundreds of billions.) AI boosters will do anything to justify the mass piracy and illegal obtainment of copyrighted material for commercial use (not research) which that is not fair use in the US. There is no debate on this. [0] [0] https://images.assettype.com/theleaflet/2025-09-27/mnuaifvw/Motion_of_Settlement.pdf https://images.assettype.com/theleaflet/2025-09-27/mnuaifvw/...
- visarga 5mo ago
  I think copyright is far for being the most important aspect related to AI, it's geopolitical and economical. And even if it was the most important, there is only a case to be made for 1. that copy used to train models and 2. rare or induced regurgitation by targeted prompting. The original work is not replicated identically, why would we replicate a work when it can be more easily seen in original or replaced with an alternative options online. We use AI to produce new outputs to new situations. We already have had drives and networking for plain copying.
stiray 5mo ago
It actually depends on evilness of the company. Elsevier is just less evil that Zuckerberg and Meta, while publishers are even less problematic. I dont think there is anything funny in that. Or anything to defend on Meta. If they go out of business, humanity profits.
happytoexplain 5mo ago
"Funny" is how dishonest snipes are framed. It such a common trope of internet quips, it's wearing me out. Can we please try to just format our disagreements without the snideness?
nullsanity 5mo ago
[dead]
4k0hz 5mo ago
Elsevier is shitty to people doing stuff that (imo) should be allowed. Meta is making money doing the same thing and not getting the same shittiness from Elsevier. Elsevier at least works within the (admittedly broken) system, Meta does not.
__loam 5mo ago
It's not settled law so I'm not sure how that's clear to you.
brendoelfrendo 5mo ago
I think this completely misses the point... the point is that Meta pirated the media they used to train their model. I am not a fan of US copyright law, but if I torrented millions of books, I would be facing a felony charge in criminal court and a (with statutory damages as high as $150,000 per title in cases of willful infringement) multi-billion dollar lawsuit in civil court. In my opinion, this has nothing to do with whether or not AI training is transformative and this fair use, and everything to do with whether or not the laws apply to everyone equally. If Facebook isn't forced to pay billions and elect a sacrificial executive to serve prison time, then I will remain angry.
platevoltage 5mo ago
Such a garbage take. This is not a parody or a critique. Mark Zuckerberg is not Weird Al Yankovic.
protocolture 5mo ago
>It's clear to me that AI training is transformative fair use under existing law. I wouldn't even go that far. Its an entirely new product. Its like the guy who sold you the keyboard demanding royalties for the software you built. That the person who wrote the book couldn't predict a new use case for the book in training LLMs, is irrelevant. The book isn't in the LLM. Its not being sold with the LLM. Its one of billions of tools used to create the LLM. People try and sell this as the AI companies extracting value from the poor little IP holders like Disney. Its maddening. That content is your cultural heritage. It already belongs to you, just some idiot has been granted a lifetime of exclusive exploitation. An LLM is trained on data you already own. Disney et al wants to exploit the new technology to extract even more money out of stuff created often decades ago. At absolute worst its reverse engineering, which was supposed to be fair use protected in the US but apparently that's been somewhat eroded.
- xigoi 5mo ago
  > The book isn't in the LLM. An LLM is essentially a lossy compression of the training data. The book absolutely is in there, it’s just mangled to the point of unrecognizability.
  - protocolture 5mo ago
    The wood tends to have an impression of the hammer that hits it. The book isn't in there, the weights are just shaped by what tools were used to form it. When large quantities of source material are replicable by prompting its a bug not a feature.
    - legacynl 5mo ago
      That's just semantics. The wood would be there without the hammer, the LLM wouldn't be here without the copyrighted works it's based on.
      - protocolture 5mo ago
        No, thats just semantics. >The LLM Wouldnt be here without the copyrighted works Google wouldn't be here if it hadn't scraped every copyrighted website and used them to form a searchable graph of the internet but we only hear complaints about them when they reproduce entire news articles.
blks 5mo ago
When you use millions of copyrighted materials to bundle together to produce a commercial product, I wouldn’t call that a fair use. Especially when licensing of such material doesn’t explicitly allow that, the material wasn’t even purchased on consumer markets and your commercial product may be a competitor/analogue to the copyrighted material. Not even going to all GPL stuff, that in a better world should have screwed all the slop companies
matheusmoreira 5mo ago
The enemy of my enemy, and all that.
jacquesm 5mo ago
I think both Elsevier and the people that appropriate IP for training commercially deployed AIs purpose without the consent of the author(s) should be legal.

Funny how people are suddenly on Elsevier's side. It's clear to me that AI training is transformative fair use under existing law. Maybe this will be the case to prove it.

eloisius 5mo ago

I find it grating that so many AI boosters try to frame pushing back against the AI industry as a sudden about-face for everyone that spent the last 20 years pushing back against the copyright industry. I’m also in favor of decriminalizing or legalizing small amounts of pot for personal use. That doesn’t mean I’m behind industrialized narcotic production on such a huge scale that it that it starts to distort the economy, and companies looking for new ways to add methamphetamine to every goddamn product.

2ndorderthought 5mo ago
Speaking of ai and meth, have you seen videos of the palantir CEO Alex karp? Dude looks like he's regularly getting the same meth shots Hitler used to get. But I hear you. One of my biggest tells that someone can't be reasoned with is when they resort to whataboutism without any consideration for how 2 situations can actually be different even if there is some commonality. It's a powerful bad faith argument technique. When that style of argument comes up I nod my head and walk away. Some people are just doomed.
- chungusamongus 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - 2ndorderthought 5mo ago
    I am not s copyright maximalist, but I would tell you be careful of a world where copyright and IP is meaningless. Might as well let any other country/company one shot your entire industry.
    - chungusamongus 5mo ago
      Slippery slope, false dilemma, etc. What other fallacies do you have in your utility belt, batman?
      - 2ndorderthought 5mo ago
        How did you know I was Bruce wayne?
        malfist 5mo ago
        Where's my goddamn electric car Bruce?
        2ndorderthought 5mo ago
        BYD sells them for super cheap.
dfxm12 5mo ago
It would be disingenuous framing because the argument against copyright stems from a belief that information should be free. Meta does not do things in this spirit. There's no about face needed...
- AnthonyMouse 5mo ago
  > It would be disingenuous framing because the argument against copyright stems from a belief that information should be free. Meta does not do things in this spirit. Don't they? They release the llama model weights, they do things like this: https://www.opencompute.org/wiki/Open_Rack/SpecsAndDesigns https://www.opencompute.org/wiki/Open_Rack/SpecsAndDesigns They also make significant contributions to Linux and are the originators of popular open source projects like zstd and React. They make their money from selling ads, not selling licenses.
  - xigoi 5mo ago
    They only released the weights because someone leaked them.
    - AnthonyMouse 5mo ago
      Someone leaked the llama 1 weights before they were released. That doesn't explain why they would release the subsequent versions except that they wanted to.
protocolture 5mo ago
>I find it grating that so many AI boosters try to frame pushing back against the AI industry as a sudden about-face for everyone that spent the last 20 years pushing back against the copyright industry. What do you think the outcome of tightening fair use is going to be? Do you think its going to be most effectual against these big evil AI companies we are meant to fear? Or is it going to end up putting more individual creators on the end of Disneys pitchforks? Like if you support creating a gun to kill a monster, that's great. But you need to understand that weapons rarely only target the person you want them to. And its unlikely that any bill that specifically targets a certain size or profit margin is going to make it all the way into law without being generalised to the approval of large IP holders. Its much much (much) better to look at this as an opportunity to erode IP laws for everyone, than to make them worse and hope that your particular enemies are the only ones that are affected. >That doesn’t mean I’m behind industrialized narcotic production on such a huge scale that it that it starts to distort the economy, and companies looking for new ways to add methamphetamine to every goddamn product. Thats such a non sequitur. This isnt a weed legalisation argument, its "Do we make IP worse for everyone, because you dont like some people benefiting from fair use".
- citadel_melon 5mo ago
  One could imagine a different legal standards for recreational, research, and commercial uses.
  - warkdarrior 5mo ago
    > One could imagine a different legal standards for recreational, research, and commercial uses. Meta used allegedly stolen copyrighted materials to train a model they shared for free with the whole world. Is this a recreational use?
    - watwut 5mo ago
      No it is not recreational use. And no, they are not freely sharing it. It is use to build a monopoly, make hones competition impossible and plan charge as much possible on it. It is the same playbook everytime. We dont have to be naive and pretend meta is doing something for other peoples benefit.
butlike 5mo ago
Tell me more about these methamphetamine products. Inquiring minds would like to know!

conception 5mo ago

Illegally obtaining copyrighted materials is usually the issue not the transformation part

akerl_ 5mo ago
Looking at the complaint ( https://publishers.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-05-05-Complaint.pdf https://publishers.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-05-05... ), that seems like the part that's got the most solid foundation, especially given that while torrenting the books, they were also seeding to other peers. The items they call out around training the models (and attempting to claim that each subsequent model generation should count as an additional instance of infringement) seem far less grounded in the current court interpretations of AI training.

King-Aaron 5mo ago

Absorb all "our" IP without consent, in doing so remove "our" own source of revenue, and then repackage it as their own product. Not really fair use IMO.

visarga 5mo ago
How does that work? Is it a kind of infringement without substantial similarity?
- King-Aaron 5mo ago
  I find it hard to think of a reasonable analogy. But it's like coming into your house, stealing all your belongings, and then building a new house with all your shit inside and then selling it back to you.

nadermx 5mo ago

I also find it funny, I said this regarding the other thread and article[0] '"They then copied those stolen fruits" How are these fruits "stolen" if they still have what was allegedley stolen? Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985): The Supreme Court ruled that the unauthorized sale of phonorecords of copyrighted musical compositions does not constitute "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" goods under the National Stolen Property Act And even if, arguendo, sure its stolen. The purpose of copyright is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" And you would be hard pressed to prove that LLM's haven't advanced the arts and sciences, so at bare minimum transformative, ie fair use.' [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48026207#48029072 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48026207#48029072

2ndorderthought 5mo ago
Cool cool cool. So all the code and data you send to anthropic and chatgpt should be mass distributable to forward other peoples arts and science? All your meeting notes with ai summarizers, slack chats with bots? Might as well put your entire company and all plans for it on github mit licensed. Ill take a peek, see if there's anything valuable to me in that. Don't worry you can keep it all on your github too. It's still yours afterall. Copilot will be training on it too though btw
- IAmLiterallyAB 5mo ago
  That's a privacy violation, not relevant.
  - 2ndorderthought 5mo ago
    No it's not. You exposed that data to an LLM. Should have read the fine print. The laws around that don't make sense to me anymore so therefore I own that stuff now. That's how this works right? You do know chatgpt etc can read everything you write, right? Also social media profile pics. Great way to get faces for deep fake ads. Most people are just 1 phone call away from being voice cloned. Our likeness isn't all that important either if you think about it. Maybe meta will clone your writing style and sign into your meta account and message your friends telling them about this awesome new product. Meta owns the account and you uploaded data to it.

whattheheckheck 5mo ago

If i could ask for a summary from an llm vs buy a book id go with the summary. That eats into commercial use and the supreme court case sided with Gerald Ford when a newspaper published a small gist of his autobiography because it ate into the sales

2ndorderthought 5mo ago
Yea nope. I like the full book without any loss of information. Even if I don't want to read the entire book. LLMs love to respond even when something is outside of their training set.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]
Larrikin 5mo ago
Every single Wikipedia article of a book or TV show has this summary. Ford should have lost.
- whattheheckheck 5mo ago
  Probably, Educational purposes is strong component of fair use doctrine

stackghost 5mo ago

I'm not on Elsevier's side, but I still think it's bullshit that giant companies are allowed to do things at a scale that I'd go to prison for.

platevoltage 5mo ago
That's always going to be true for the Capitalist class.
- stackghost 5mo ago
  And yet I continue to rage against the dying of the light.

rvz 5mo ago

> It's clear to me that AI training is transformative fair use under existing law. Maybe this will be the case to prove it. That is not what this case is about. It is more about the illegal violation and piracy of copyrighted content done by Meta for commercial use and Zuck knew they were doing it. Why did Anthropic settle [0] with a multi-billion dollar payout to authors after commercializing their LLMs that was trained off of copyrighted content that was illegally obtained and kept without the authors permission? There's a reason why they (Anthropic) did not want it to go to trial. (Anthropic knew they would lose and it would completely bankrupt them in the hundreds of billions.) AI boosters will do anything to justify the mass piracy and illegal obtainment of copyrighted material for commercial use (not research) which that is not fair use in the US. There is no debate on this. [0] [0] https://images.assettype.com/theleaflet/2025-09-27/mnuaifvw/Motion_of_Settlement.pdf https://images.assettype.com/theleaflet/2025-09-27/mnuaifvw/...

visarga 5mo ago
I think copyright is far for being the most important aspect related to AI, it's geopolitical and economical. And even if it was the most important, there is only a case to be made for 1. that copy used to train models and 2. rare or induced regurgitation by targeted prompting. The original work is not replicated identically, why would we replicate a work when it can be more easily seen in original or replaced with an alternative options online. We use AI to produce new outputs to new situations. We already have had drives and networking for plain copying.

stiray 5mo ago

It actually depends on evilness of the company. Elsevier is just less evil that Zuckerberg and Meta, while publishers are even less problematic. I dont think there is anything funny in that. Or anything to defend on Meta. If they go out of business, humanity profits.

happytoexplain 5mo ago

"Funny" is how dishonest snipes are framed. It such a common trope of internet quips, it's wearing me out. Can we please try to just format our disagreements without the snideness?

nullsanity 5mo ago

[dead]

4k0hz 5mo ago

Elsevier is shitty to people doing stuff that (imo) should be allowed. Meta is making money doing the same thing and not getting the same shittiness from Elsevier. Elsevier at least works within the (admittedly broken) system, Meta does not.

__loam 5mo ago

It's not settled law so I'm not sure how that's clear to you.

brendoelfrendo 5mo ago

I think this completely misses the point... the point is that Meta pirated the media they used to train their model. I am not a fan of US copyright law, but if I torrented millions of books, I would be facing a felony charge in criminal court and a (with statutory damages as high as $150,000 per title in cases of willful infringement) multi-billion dollar lawsuit in civil court. In my opinion, this has nothing to do with whether or not AI training is transformative and this fair use, and everything to do with whether or not the laws apply to everyone equally. If Facebook isn't forced to pay billions and elect a sacrificial executive to serve prison time, then I will remain angry.

platevoltage 5mo ago

Such a garbage take. This is not a parody or a critique. Mark Zuckerberg is not Weird Al Yankovic.

protocolture 5mo ago

>It's clear to me that AI training is transformative fair use under existing law. I wouldn't even go that far. Its an entirely new product. Its like the guy who sold you the keyboard demanding royalties for the software you built. That the person who wrote the book couldn't predict a new use case for the book in training LLMs, is irrelevant. The book isn't in the LLM. Its not being sold with the LLM. Its one of billions of tools used to create the LLM. People try and sell this as the AI companies extracting value from the poor little IP holders like Disney. Its maddening. That content is your cultural heritage. It already belongs to you, just some idiot has been granted a lifetime of exclusive exploitation. An LLM is trained on data you already own. Disney et al wants to exploit the new technology to extract even more money out of stuff created often decades ago. At absolute worst its reverse engineering, which was supposed to be fair use protected in the US but apparently that's been somewhat eroded.

xigoi 5mo ago
> The book isn't in the LLM. An LLM is essentially a lossy compression of the training data. The book absolutely is in there, it’s just mangled to the point of unrecognizability.
- protocolture 5mo ago
  The wood tends to have an impression of the hammer that hits it. The book isn't in there, the weights are just shaped by what tools were used to form it. When large quantities of source material are replicable by prompting its a bug not a feature.
  - legacynl 5mo ago
    That's just semantics. The wood would be there without the hammer, the LLM wouldn't be here without the copyrighted works it's based on.
    - protocolture 5mo ago
      No, thats just semantics. >The LLM Wouldnt be here without the copyrighted works Google wouldn't be here if it hadn't scraped every copyrighted website and used them to form a searchable graph of the internet but we only hear complaints about them when they reproduce entire news articles.

blks 5mo ago

When you use millions of copyrighted materials to bundle together to produce a commercial product, I wouldn’t call that a fair use. Especially when licensing of such material doesn’t explicitly allow that, the material wasn’t even purchased on consumer markets and your commercial product may be a competitor/analogue to the copyrighted material. Not even going to all GPL stuff, that in a better world should have screwed all the slop companies

matheusmoreira 5mo ago

The enemy of my enemy, and all that.

jacquesm 5mo ago

I think both Elsevier and the people that appropriate IP for training commercially deployed AIs purpose without the consent of the author(s) should be legal.