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.
themeatbridge@lemmy.world 5 days ago
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.
AbidanYre@lemmy.world 5 days ago
You’re right. When you’re doing it for commercial gain, it’s not fair use anymore. It’s really not that complicated.
tabular@lemmy.world 5 days ago
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)
nulluser@lemmy.world 5 days ago
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.