Nvidia contacted Anna's Archive to access books

Post by reorder9695 » Mon, Jan 19, 2026, 9:22 PM UTC

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #34

skilled wrote: post #3

> In response, NVIDIA defended its actions as fair use, noting that books are nothing more than statistical correlations to its AI models. Does this even make sense? Are the copyright laws so bad that a statement like this would actually be in NVIDIA’s favor?

Yes, it's been discussed many times before. All the corporations training LLMs have to have done a legal analysis and concluded that it's defensible. Even one of the white papers commissioned by the FSF ( " Copyright Implications of the Use of Code Repositories to Train a Machine Learning Model " at https://www.fsf.org/licensing/copilot/copyright-implications... ), concluded that using copyrighted data to train AI wa…

Post by HWR_14 » Mon, Jan 19, 2026, 9:40 PM UTC

visarga wrote: post #68

Ferret7446 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, the "copy" of the movie in your brain is not illegal. It would be rather troublesome and dystopian if it were.

The problem is when you use your "copy" as inspiration and actually create and publish something. It is very hard to be certain you are safe, besides literal expression close paraphrasing is also infringing, using world building elements, or using any original abstraction (AFC test). You can only know after a lawsuit. It is impossible to tell how much AI any creator used secretly, so now all works are under suspicion…

Post by NicuCalcea » Mon, Jan 19, 2026, 11:17 PM UTC

threethirtytwo wrote: post #37

ckastner wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To call training illegal is similar to calling reading a book and remembering it illegal. Perhaps, but reproducing the book from this memory could very well be illegal. And these models are all about production.

Models don’t reproduce books though. It’s impossible for a model to reproduce something word for word because the model never copied the book. Most of the best fit curve runs along a path that doesn’t even touch an actual data point.

Post by rpdillon » Tue, Jan 20, 2026, 12:19 AM UTC

dns_snek wrote: post #110

rpdillon wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this sentiment posted quite a bit, but have the publishers made any products available that would allow AI training on their works for payment? A naive approach would be to go to an online bookstore and pay $15 for every book, but then you have copyrighted content that is encrypted, that it's a violation of the DMCA to decrypt. I assume you're expecting that they'll reach out and cut a deal with each publishing…

Do you believe in private property rights? If the product they want doesn't exist then they're shit out of luck and they must either make one or wait for one to get made. You're arguing that it's okay for them to break the law because doing business legally is really inconvenient . That would be the end of discussion if we lived in a world governed by the rule of law but we're repeatedly reminded that we don't.

Post by rpdillon » Tue, Jan 20, 2026, 12:29 AM UTC

zaptheimpaler wrote: post #98

rpdillon wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this sentiment posted quite a bit, but have the publishers made any products available that would allow AI training on their works for payment? A naive approach would be to go to an online bookstore and pay $15 for every book, but then you have copyrighted content that is encrypted, that it's a violation of the DMCA to decrypt. I assume you're expecting that they'll reach out and cut a deal with each publishing…

> I assume you're expecting that they'll reach out and cut a deal with each publishing house separately, and then those publishing houses will have to somehow transfer their data over to NVIDIA. But that's a very custom set of discussions and deals that have to be struck. If this is the only legal way for them to train, then yes that is what they should do instead of breaking the law... just because its not easy does…