Comment on Judge Rules Training AI on Authors' Books Is Legal But Pirating Them Is Not
fum@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
What a bad judge.
This is another indication of how Copyright laws are bad. The whole premise of copyright has been obsolete since the proliferation of the internet.
gian@lemmy.grys.it 4 weeks ago
Why ? Basically he simply stated that you can use whatever material you want to train your model as long as you ask the permission to use it (and presumably pay for it) to the author (or copytight holder)
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
If I understand correctly they are ruling you can by a book once, and redistribute the information to as many people you want without consequences. Aka 1 student should be able to buy a textbook and redistribute it to all other students for free.
They may be trying to put safeguards so it isn’t directly happening, but here is an example that the text is there word for word:
Image
gian@lemmy.grys.it 4 weeks ago
Well, it would be interesting if this case would be used as precedence in a case invonving a single student that do the same thing. But you are right
fum@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
This was my understanding also, and why I think the judge is bad at their job.
VoterFrog@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
A student can absolutely buy a text book and then teach the other students the information in it for free. That’s not redistribution. Redistribution would mean making copies of the book to hand out. That’s illegal for people and companies.
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
The language model isn’t teaching anything it is changing the wording of something and spitting it back out. And in some cases, not changing the wording at all, just spitting the information back out, without paying the copyright source. It is not alive, it has no thoughts. It has no “its own words.” (As seen by the judgement that it’s words cannot be copyrighted.) It only has other people’s words. Every word it spits out by definition is plagiarism, whether the work was copyrighted before or not.
People wonder why works, such as journalism are getting worse. Well how could they ever get better if anything a journalist writes can be absorbed in real time, reworded and regurgitated without paying any dos to the original source. One journalist article, displayed in 30 versions, dividing the original works worth up into 30 portions. The original work now being worth 1/30th its original value. Maybe one can argue it is twice as good, so 1/15th.
Long term it means all original creations… Are devalued and therefore not nearly worth pursuing. So we will only get shittier and shittier information. Every research project… Physics, Chemistry, Psychology, all technological advancements, slowly degraded as language models get better, and original sources deminish returns.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 4 weeks ago
Not at all true. AI doesn’t just reproduce content it was trained on on demand.
WraithGear@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
It can, the only thing stopping it is if it is specifically told not to, and this consideration is successfully checked for. It is completely capable of plagiarizing otherwise.
patatahooligan@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
“Fair use” is the exact opposite of what you’re saying here. It says that you don’t need to ask for any permission. The judge ruled that obtaining illegitimate copies was unlawful but use without the creators consent is perfectly fine.
j0ester@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Huh? Didn’t Meta not use any permission, and pirated a lot of books to train their model?
gian@lemmy.grys.it 4 weeks ago
True. And I will be happy if someone sue them and the judge say the same thing.