441–450 of 654 posts
Edited for slight typo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many times were hugely popular books rejected before a publisher decided they were worthy? Copyright far more protects the wealthy than the good. They don't need to sell your book, they just need to own the book that people are buying right now. Giving your book a chance to sell would dectract from those sales. If there were no copyright anyone trying to sell the book $1 cheaper would be undercut by someone selli…
Well, there is nothing to distribute if the author is not incentivized to write... which you seemed to skip past.
There needs to be a way to support the creation of art.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As far as I'm concerned, the courts are wrong, and training on ill gotten copyrighted material is not fair use. It’s important to remember that a court’s job is to apply law to a situation. When a court gets something wrong it’s a misinterpretation of the law and will, by definition, be overturnable on appeal. I suspect that your objection isn’t that the court is wrong, it’s that the law is wrong.
It's not a settled area of law and there is a SDNY judge that has a completely different application of the fair use analysis in the same exact context and came to a completely different conclusion (that it is not fair use).
Lesson in there about experts and politics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Real question, if an LLM shouldn't be able to remix someone's written work, why should a robot be able to build a chair that kinda looks like a chair a carpenter built that one time? The carpenter was a human, and humans are not a service. Why this distinction only for intellectual work?
For the same reason that you can make a similar-looking chair, but you can’t distribute a fuzzy copy of Star Wars. The char isn’t a copyrighted work.
there are also fan remakes of movies like this one. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3528906/
I'm not a lawyer but this does seem like they're wholesale copying ideas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is everyone talking about human analogies when LLMs are not humans?
Why is it different other than, "just cause?" No one seems to have actual reasoning to back it up while it feels very similar the other way around, is human brains and neural nets (notwithstanding that they're both called neurons) seem to learn similarly and can act on similar classes of problems like language and mathematics.
IMO the spirit of the law would prohibit LLMs from training, and the letter of the law leaves room for that only because nobody thought to write down "books are for people to read".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This settlement has basically nothing to do with LLMs. At least not as far as the courts are concerned. Alsup ruled [0] that feeding a book into an LLM is transformative and counts as fair use. Especially when they purchased a physical copy of the book, scanned it, and destroyed the original. But if I'm reading the ruling correctly, Anthropic might have been fine even with feeding pirated books into their LLM (as lon…
As far as I'm concerned, the courts are wrong, and training on ill gotten copyrighted material is not fair use. Given the clear value of highly trained LLMs, the investment they have taken on, and the amount of disruption to the existing economy they stand to make, in a just world, the people who created the training data deserve some level of compensation. I think, in the US, they are very afraid of falling behind C…
The internet, in true internet fashion, still has the general logic level of a 15 year old.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I'm concerned, the courts are wrong, and training on ill gotten copyrighted material is not fair use. Given the clear value of highly trained LLMs, the investment they have taken on, and the amount of disruption to the existing economy they stand to make, in a just world, the people who created the training data deserve some level of compensation. I think, in the US, they are very afraid of falling behind C…
> As far as I'm concerned, the courts are wrong, and training on ill gotten copyrighted material is not fair use. It’s important to remember that a court’s job is to apply law to a situation. When a court gets something wrong it’s a misinterpretation of the law and will, by definition, be overturnable on appeal. I suspect that your objection isn’t that the court is wrong, it’s that the law is wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s a difference between an abstract idea and the concrete thing. Regurgitating an idea is different than repeating the text verbatim. Ideas are protected by patents, not copyright.
There's also a difference between an MP3 and a FLAC. Again, ask DJs how well they're getting away on that distinction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes exactly. That's basically what an emulator for a games console is for example, a reimplementation of the original.
So a console game loses its copyright if you emulate it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
copyright is bullshit
Copyright is what stops someone from copy+pasting a book that took years to write, then selling it $1 cheaper than the original author on Amazon or whatever and making a margin 1 million percent higher than the original author. Imagine a society without copyright… only physically intensive jobs could make money because everything else would be pirated, ripped-off or free. Thus, only those who are financially independ…
You're speaking to the generation of pirates. What? Suddenly everyone is hanging up their high seas hat to capture the virtue signals of current sentiment?