151–160 of 222 posts
Humans read books. AI/LLMs do not read. I think there's an inherent difference here. If the LLM is making a copy of the entire book in it's memory, is that copyright infringement? I don't know the answer to that, but it feels like Alsup is considering this fair use argument in the context of a human, but it's nothing like a human and needs to be treated differently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely this would require the observation that the public is actually using LLMs as a substitute for purchasing the book, ie they sit down and type "Generate me the first/second/third chapter of The Da Vinci Code " and then read if from there. Because it was easy to observe in the cassette tape era that people copied the store bought music and films and shared it among each other. I doubt that this is or will be a se…
For narrative fiction, probably not, no. But for non-fiction and technical books, they sure as hell will. For example, if I ask Gemini "What does Bob Nystrom say about the Singleton pattern in Game Programming Patterns?", it says: --- In "Game Programming Patterns," Bob Nystrom dedicates an entire chapter to the Singleton pattern, which is unusual because, as he states, "Every other chapter in this book shows you how…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why would it erase the mistake? you pirated first.
Who is the victim, and how was that person not made whole?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely this would require the observation that the public is actually using LLMs as a substitute for purchasing the book, ie they sit down and type "Generate me the first/second/third chapter of The Da Vinci Code " and then read if from there. Because it was easy to observe in the cassette tape era that people copied the store bought music and films and shared it among each other. I doubt that this is or will be a se…
It's different but not in ways that make such interventions irrelevant e.g. why would we only care about lost sales? If copyright has been violated as a necessary means to generate new value, haven't the content creators earned this value? Such imperfect measures offer a compromise between "big tech can steal everything" and "LLMs trained on unpurchased books are illegal". It's not just books but any tragedy-of-the-c…
Indeed the company should purchase the books. If they obtain copies in a process that violates copyright, then that's indeed a violation of copyright.
The current decision does not rule on the legality of obtaining the books without purchasing.
I'm surprised we never discuss a previous case of how governments handled a valuable new technology that challenged creative's ability to monetise their work: Cassette Tapes and Private Copying Levy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy Governments didn't ban tapes but taxed them and fed the proceeds back into the royalty system. An equivalent for books might be an LLM tax funding a negative tax rate fo…
Surely this would require the observation that the public is actually using LLMs as a substitute for purchasing the book, ie they sit down and type "Generate me the first/second/third chapter of The Da Vinci Code " and then read if from there. Because it was easy to observe in the cassette tape era that people copied the store bought music and films and shared it among each other. I doubt that this is or will be a se…
IMHO, a better example would be the AI generated summaries provided by Google. Often these summaries have sufficient information and detail that people do not read the source article. The authors aren't getting paid (perhaps through on-page ads, which are not viewed) and then go out of business.
This strikes me as a good fit for the tax-on-cassette metaphor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For narrative fiction, probably not, no. But for non-fiction and technical books, they sure as hell will. For example, if I ask Gemini "What does Bob Nystrom say about the Singleton pattern in Game Programming Patterns?", it says: --- In "Game Programming Patterns," Bob Nystrom dedicates an entire chapter to the Singleton pattern, which is unusual because, as he states, "Every other chapter in this book shows you how…
Transformed summaries are generally fair use already (or perhaps not even an issue of copyright). You can read plot summaries of novels and movies on Wikipedia, same with technical topics. The ideas are not protected by copyright, the artistic expression is. Certain technical ideas can be protected via patents. But even then, not the description of idea, but putting it into practice. Ideas that you're not supposed to…
I believe copyright is always case-by-case. No one sues over plot summaries because they likely help sales. Summarize books or news articles with an LLM and you end up with the lawsuits we see today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely this would require the observation that the public is actually using LLMs as a substitute for purchasing the book, ie they sit down and type "Generate me the first/second/third chapter of The Da Vinci Code " and then read if from there. Because it was easy to observe in the cassette tape era that people copied the store bought music and films and shared it among each other. I doubt that this is or will be a se…
This strikes me as a weak example, I think it's clear that it's way too cumbersome to read an entire novel by asking an LLM to dictate it. IMHO, a better example would be the AI generated summaries provided by Google. Often these summaries have sufficient information and detail that people do not read the source article. The authors aren't getting paid (perhaps through on-page ads, which are not viewed) and then go o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This strikes me as a weak example, I think it's clear that it's way too cumbersome to read an entire novel by asking an LLM to dictate it. IMHO, a better example would be the AI generated summaries provided by Google. Often these summaries have sufficient information and detail that people do not read the source article. The authors aren't getting paid (perhaps through on-page ads, which are not viewed) and then go o…
It's not a copyright violation to summarize (in different words).
https://1minutebook.com/are-book-summaries-legal/
Fair use is a defense often cited in those cases but it's just that: a defense. Cliff Notes are often cited here but they actually license the content in many cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The number of people who buy Cliffs Notes versions of books to pass examinations where they claim to have read the actual book suggests you are way overestimating how "reasonable" many people are.
Cliff Notes are fair use. Would you argue otherwise? Wikipedia also has plot summaries without infringement.
I'm not a legal scholar, so I'm not qualified or interested in arguing about whether Cliff Notes is fair use. But I do care about how people behave, and I'm pretty sure that Cliff Notes and LLMs lead to fewer books being purchased, which makes it harder for writers to do what they do.
In the case of Cliff Notes, it probably matters less because because the authors of 19th century books in your English 101 class are long dead and buried. But for authors of newer technical material, yes, I think LLMs will make it harder for those people to be able to afford to spend the time thinking, writing, and sharing their expertise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This strikes me as a weak example, I think it's clear that it's way too cumbersome to read an entire novel by asking an LLM to dictate it. IMHO, a better example would be the AI generated summaries provided by Google. Often these summaries have sufficient information and detail that people do not read the source article. The authors aren't getting paid (perhaps through on-page ads, which are not viewed) and then go o…
It's not a copyright violation to summarize (in different words).
Just as duplicating a fragment can be legal, duplicating any fragment on demand is not. Rephrasing a passage might be legal, but rephrasing any passage on demand might not.