Comment

Comment on Meta admits using pirated books to train AI, but won't pay for it

They’re the same issue tho. Piracy and using books for corporate AI training both should be fine. They same people going after data freedom are pushing this AI drama too. There’s too much money in copyright holding and it’s not being held by your favorite deviantart artists.

source

Sort:hotnew top

kibiz0r@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
It’s not the same issue at all.

Piracy distributes power. It allows disenfranchised or marginalized people to access information and participate in culture, no matter where they live or how much money they have. It subverts a top-down read-only culture by enabling read-write access for anyone.

Large-scale computing services like these so-called AIs consolidate power. They displace access to the original information and the headwaters of culture. They are for-profit services, tuned to the interests of specific American companies. They suppress read-write channels between author and audience.

One gives power to the people. One gives power to 5 massive corporations.

source
- SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Extremely well-said.
  
  Also, it’s important to point out that the one that empowers people is the one that is consistently punished far more egregiously.
  
  We have governments blocking the likes of Sci-Hub, Libgen, and Annas-Archive, but nobody is blocking Meta’s LLMs for the same.
  
  source
- drmoose@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  It’s the opposite. Closing down public resources would be regulatory capture and that would be consolidation of power.
  
  Who do you think can afford to pay billions in copyright to produce models? Only mega corporations and pirates. No more small AI companies.
  
  source
SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
So why are Meta, and say, Sci-Hub are treated so differently? I don’t necessarily disagree, but it’s interesting that we legally attack people who are sharing data altruistically (Sci-Hub gives research away for free so more research can be done, scientific research should be free to the world, because it benefits all of mankind), but when it comes to companies who break the same laws to just make more money, that’s fine somehow.

It’s like trying to improve the world is punished, and being a selfish greedy fucking pig is celebrated and rewarded.

source
- SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  To me it always seems to come back to nobility. Big corpo is the new nobility and they have certain privileges not available to the common folk. In theory it shouldn’t exist but in practice it most certainly does.
  
  source
  - SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    The aristocracy never died, it just got a new name.
    
    I mean the US is literally built on the fact that the aristocracy in the US didn’t actually want to lose station, so they included many anti-democratic measures from the Senate to the Electoral College to only allowing land-owning white men to vote.
    
    How people do not see this is a complete farce.
    
    source
- General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  
  So why are Meta, and say, Sci-Hub treated so differently?
  
  They are not. Meta is being sued, just like Sci-Hub was sued. So, one difference is that the suit involving Meta is still ongoing.
  
  In any case, Meta did not create the dataset. IDK if they even shared it. The researcher who did is also being sued. The dataset has been taken down in response to a copyright complaint. IDK if it is available anywhere anymore. So the dataset was treated just like Sci-Hub. The sharing of the copyrighted material was stopped.
  
  Meta downloading these books for AI training seems fairly straight-forward fair use to me. I don’t see how what Meta did is anything like what Sci-Hub did.
  
  source
  - SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    So ISPs are blocking Meta because of their breaking copyright?
    
    Because ISPs block Sci-Hub.
    
    source
    General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    ISPs may block sites to prevent unauthorized copying. It’s not a punishment for past wrong-doing. I’m not sure about the details, I think this differs a lot between jurisdictions. But basically, as ISPs they are involved in the unauthorized act of copying. Their servers copy the data to the end user/customer. So, they may be on the hook for infringement themselves if they don’t act.
    
    Again, I am not aware of Meta sharing the copyrighted books in question. So, I don’t know what the legal basis for blocking Meta would be. If ISPs block a site without a legal basis, they are probably on the hook for breach of contract.
    
    IDK on what basis the sharing of Meta’s LLMs could be stopped. If anyone could claim copyright it would be Meta itself and they allow sharing them. (I have doubts if AI models are copyrightable under current US law.)
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    Meta downloading these books for AI training seems fairly straight-forward fair use to me.
    
    They pirated the books. Is that not legally relevant?
    
    source