Comment on Judge Rules Training AI on Authors' Books Is Legal But Pirating Them Is Not
Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world 9 months ago
And this is how you know that the Americans legal system should not be trusted.
Mind you I am not saying this an easy case, it’s not. But the framing that piracy is wrong but ML training for profit is not wrong is clearly based on oligarch interests and demands.
The order seems to say that the trained LLM and the commercial Claude product are not linked, which supports the decision. But I’m not sure how he came to that conclusion. I’m going to have to read the full order when I have time.
This might be appealed, but I doubt it’ll be taken up by SCOTUS until another federal court rules differently.
If you are struggling for time, just put the opinion into chat GPT and ask for a summary. it will save you tonnes of time.
This is an easy case. Using published works to train AI without paying for the right to do so is piracy. The judge making this determination is an idiot.
The judge making this determination is an idiot.
The judge hasn’t ruled on the piracy question yet. The only thing that the judge has ruled on is, if you legally own a copy of a book, then you can use it for a variety of purposes, including training an AI.
“But they didn’t own the books!”
Right. That’s the part that’s still going to trial.
You’re right. When you’re doing it for commercial gain, it’s not fair use anymore. It’s really not that complicated.
If you’re using the minimum amount, in a transformative way that doesn’t compete with the original copyrighted source, then it’s still fair use even if it’s commercial. (This is not saying that’s what LLM are doing)
Arcka@midwest.social 9 months ago
If this is the ruling which causes you to lose trust that any legal system (not just the US’) aligns with morality, then I have to question where you’ve been all this time.
Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world 9 months ago
I could have been more clear, but it wasn’t my intention to imply that this particular case is the turning point.