Hang on, it is OK under copyright law to scan a book I bought second hand, destroy the hard copy and keep the scan in my online library? That doesn't seem to chime with the copyright notices I have read in books.
Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge
281–290 of 686 posts
Re: Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
You skipped quotes about the other important side: > But Alsup drew a firm line when it came to piracy. > "Anthropic had no entitlement to use pirated copies for its central library," Alsup wrote. "Creating a permanent, general-purpose library was not itself a fair use excusing Anthropic's piracy." That is, he ruled that - buying, physically cutting up, physically digitizing books, and using them for training is fair…
From my understanding: > pirating the books for their digital library is not fair use. "Pirating" is a fuzzy word and has no real meaning. Specifically, I think this is the cruz: > without adding new copies, creating new works, or redistributing existing copies Essentially: downloading is fine, sharing/uploading up is not. Which makes sense. The assertion here is that Anthropic (from this line) did not distribute the…
Downloading and using pirated software in a company is fine then as long as it is not shared outside? If what you describe is legal it makes no sense to pay for software.
Re: Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge
#283The buried lede here is Antrhopic will need to attempt to explain to a judge that it is impossible to de-train 7M books from their models.
I'm hoping they fail to incentivize using legal, open, and/or licensed data. Then, thry might have to attempt to train a Claude-class model on legal data. Then, I'll have a great, legal model to use. :)
Re: Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge
#284Every time an article like this surfaces, it always seems like the majority of tech folks believe that training AI on copyrighted material is NOT fair use, but the legal industry disagrees.
Which of the following are true?
(a) the legal industry is susceptible to influence and corruption
(b) engineers don't understand how to legally interpret legal text
(c) AI tech is new, and judges aren't technically qualified to decide these scenarios
Most likely option is C, as we've seen this pattern many times before.
Re: Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't "pirating" a felony with jail time, though? That's what I remember from the FBI warning I had to see at the beginning of every DVD I bought (but not "pirated" ones).
[flagged]
What someone at Anthropic did was download libgen once, then Anthropic figured "wait a minute, isn't that illegal?" , so instead they went and bought 7 million books for real and cut them up to scan them.
Turns out this doesn't quite mitigate downloading them first. (Though frankly, I'm very much against people having to buy 7 million books when someone has already scanned them)
Re: Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you reproduce the material from a work you've purchased then of course you're in violation of copyright, but that's not what an LLM does (and when it does I already conceded it's in violation and should be stopped). An LLM that doesn't "sell goods with movie characters" is not in violation. And the harm you describe is not a recognized harm. You don't own information, you own creative works in their entirety. If y…
To load a printed book into a computer one has to reproduce it in digital form without authorization. That's making a copy.
Making a digital copy of a physical book is fair use under every legal structure I am aware of.
When you do it for a transformative purpose (turning it into an LLM model) it's certainly fair use.
But more importantly, it's ethical to do so, as the agreement you've made with the person you've purchased the book from included permission to do exactly that.
Re: Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
So all they have to do is go and buy a copy of each book they pirated. They will have ceased and desisted.
I'm trying to find the quote, but I'm pretty sure the judge specifically said that going and buying the book after the fact won't absolve them of liability. He said that for the books they pirated they broke the law and should stand trial for that and they cannot go back and un-break in by buying a copy now. Found it: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/federal-judge-rules-c... > “That Anthropic later bought a cop…
Did they really steal if they didn't deprive anyone of their copy? I don't think copying is theft.
Re: Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge
#288Every time an article like this surfaces, it always seems like the majority of tech folks believe that training AI on copyrighted material is NOT fair use, but the legal industry disagrees. Which of the following are true? (a) the legal industry is susceptible to influence and corruption (b) engineers don't understand how to legally interpret legal text (c) AI tech is new, and judges aren't technically qualified to d…
Idk, I think most people in tech I talk to IRL think it is fair use?
I think the overly liberal, non-tech crowd has become really vocal on HN as of late and your sample is likely biased by these people.
Re: Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's abusive and wrong to try and prevent AI companies from using your works at all. The whole point of copyright is to ensure you're paid for your work. AI companies shouldn't pirate, but if they pay for your work, they should be able to use it however they please, including training an LLM on it. If that LLM reproduces your work, then the AI company is violating copyright, but if the LLM doesn't reproduce your work…
> The whole point of copyright is to ensure you're paid for your work. No. The point of copyright is that the author gets to decide under what terms their works are copied. That's the essence of copyright. In many cases, authors will happily sell you a copy of their work, but they're under no obligation to do so. They can claim a copyright and then never release their work to the general public. That's perfectly with…
We're operating under a model where the owner of the copyright has already sold their work. And while it's within their rights to stipulate conditions of the sale, they did not do that, and fair use of the work as governed under the laws the book was sold under encompasses its conversion into an LLM model.
If the author didn't want their work to be included in an LLM, they should not have sold it, just like if an author didn't want their work to inspire someone else's work, they should not have sold it.
Re: Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge
#290Every time an article like this surfaces, it always seems like the majority of tech folks believe that training AI on copyrighted material is NOT fair use, but the legal industry disagrees. Which of the following are true? (a) the legal industry is susceptible to influence and corruption (b) engineers don't understand how to legally interpret legal text (c) AI tech is new, and judges aren't technically qualified to d…
Armchair commentators, including myself, tend to be imprecise when speaking about whether something is illegal, versus something should be illegal. Sometimes due to a misunderstanding of the law, or an over-estimation of the court's authority, or an over-estimation of our legislature's productivity, or just because we're making conversation and like talking.