Plantifs made that argument and the judge shoots it down pretty hard. That competition isn’t what copyright protects from. Would love to hear your thoughts on the ruling (it’s linked by reuters).
Comment on Judge backs AI firm over use of copyrighted books
AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 1 day ago
IMO the focus should have always been on the potential for AI to produce copyright-violating output, not on the method of training.
Artisian@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Cort@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
Orcs and dwarves (with a v) are creations of Tolkien, if the fantasy stories include them, it’s a violation of copyright the same as including Mickey mouse.
My argument would have been to ask the ai for the bass line to Queen & David Bowie’s Under Pressure. Then refer to that as a reproduction of copyrighted material. But then again, AI companies probably have better lawyers than vanilla ice.
SculptusPoe@lemmy.world 1 day ago
If you try to sell “the new adventures of Doctor Strange, Steven Strange and Magic Man.” existing copyright laws are sufficient and will stop it. Really, training should be regulated by the same laws as reading. If they can get the material through legitimate means it should be fine.
devfuuu@lemmy.world [bot] 1 day ago
That “freely” there really does a lot of hard work.
SculptusPoe@lemmy.world 1 day ago
It means what it means, “freely” pulls its own weight. I didn’t say “readily” accessible. Torrents could be viewed as “readily” accessible but it couldn’t be viewed as “freely” accessible because at the very least you bear the guilt of theft. Library books are “freely” accessible, and if somehow the training involved checking out books and returning them digitally, it should be fine. If it is free to read into neurons it is free to read into neurons. If payment for reading is expected then it isn’t free.
Womble@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Civil cases of copyright infringment are not theft, no matter what the MPIA have trained you to believe.
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
I have a freely accessible document that I have a cc license for that states it is not to be used for commercial use. This is commercial use. Your policy would allow for that document to be used though since it is accessible. This kind of policy discourages me from easily sharing my works as others profit from my efforts and my works are more likely to be attributed to a corporate beast I want nothing to do with then to me.
I’m all for copyright reform and simpler copyright law, but these companies need to be held to standard copyright rules and not just made up modifications. I’m convinced a perfectly decent LLM could be built without violating copyrights.
I’d also be ok sharing works with a not for profit open source LLM and I think others might as well.
kate@lemmy.uhhoh.com 1 day ago
Copies of copyrighted works cannot be regarded as “stolen property” for the purposes of a prosecution under the National Stolen Property Act of 1934.
…wikipedia.org/…/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985)