41–50 of 188 posts
This isn't really about "AI". It's about copying summaries. Google was fined for this in France for copying news headlines into their search results, and now has to pay royalties in the EU. Westlaw is a summarizing and indexing service for court case results. It's been publishing that info in book form since 1872. Ross was trying to compete with Westlaw, but used Westlaw as an input. West's "Key Numbers" are, after a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So the models are legitimately not viable without massive copyright infringement. Copyright is not about acquisition, it is about publication and/or distribution. If I get a copy of Harry Potter from a dumpster, I can read it. If a company gets a copy of *all books from a torrent, they can use it to train their AI. The torrent providers may be in violation of copyright, and if the AI can be used to reproduce substa…
As long as someone give me the software software to run my business, that person might be in violation of copyright but I'm in the clear. Simply running my business on illegally distributed copyrighted text/software/movie should not be copyright infringement.
Here's the full decision, which (like most decisions!) is largely written to be legible to non-lawyers: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.721... The core story seems to be: Westlaw writes and owns headnotes that help lawyers find legal cases about a particular topic. Ross paid people to translate those headnotes into new text, trained an AI on the translations, and used those to make a model th…
> The court emphasizes "Because the AI landscape is changing rapidly, I note for readers that only non-generative AI is before me today." But I'm not sure "generative" is that meaningful a distinction here. Also the judge makes that statement, it looks like he misunderstands the nature of the AI system and the inherent generative elements it includes.
Here's the full decision, which (like most decisions!) is largely written to be legible to non-lawyers: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.721... The core story seems to be: Westlaw writes and owns headnotes that help lawyers find legal cases about a particular topic. Ross paid people to translate those headnotes into new text, trained an AI on the translations, and used those to make a model th…
If the copyright holders win, the model giants will just license. This effectively kills open source, which can't afford to license and won't be able to sublicense training data. This is very bad for democratized access to and development of AI. The giants will probably want this. The giants were already purchasing legacy media content enterprises (Amazon and MGM, etc.), so this will probably further consolidation an…
To the contrary, this just means companies can't make money from these models.
Those using models for research and personal use wouldn't be infringing under the fair use tests.
Here's the full decision, which (like most decisions!) is largely written to be legible to non-lawyers: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.721... The core story seems to be: Westlaw writes and owns headnotes that help lawyers find legal cases about a particular topic. Ross paid people to translate those headnotes into new text, trained an AI on the translations, and used those to make a model th…
> The court emphasizes "Because the AI landscape is changing rapidly, I note for readers that only non-generative AI is before me today." But I'm not sure "generative" is that meaningful a distinction here. Also the judge makes that statement, it looks like he misunderstands the nature of the AI system and the inherent generative elements it includes.
I'm aware this isn't a concern yet, but imagine if the future played out this way....
Or worse: Only those with really deep pockets can pay to get AI, and no one else can, simply because they can't afford the copyright fees.
See. The fair-use excuses that the AI proponents here were trying to hang on to for dear life have fallen flat on this ruling. This is going to be one of many cases in which there will be licensing deals being made out of this to stop AI grifters claiming 'fair use' to try to side-step copyright laws because they are using a gen AI system. OpenAI ended up paying up for the data with Shutterstock and other news source…
Here's the full decision, which (like most decisions!) is largely written to be legible to non-lawyers: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.721... The core story seems to be: Westlaw writes and owns headnotes that help lawyers find legal cases about a particular topic. Ross paid people to translate those headnotes into new text, trained an AI on the translations, and used those to make a model th…
If the copyright holders win, the model giants will just license. This effectively kills open source, which can't afford to license and won't be able to sublicense training data. This is very bad for democratized access to and development of AI. The giants will probably want this. The giants were already purchasing legacy media content enterprises (Amazon and MGM, etc.), so this will probably further consolidation an…
No, they won't. The biggest models want to train on literally every piece of human-written text ever written. You can pay to license small subsets of that at a time. You can't pay to license all of it. And some of it won't be available to license at all, at any price.
If the copyright holders win, model trainers will have to pay attention to what they train on, rather than blithely ignoring licenses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the copyright holders win, the model giants will just license. This effectively kills open source, which can't afford to license and won't be able to sublicense training data. This is very bad for democratized access to and development of AI. The giants will probably want this. The giants were already purchasing legacy media content enterprises (Amazon and MGM, etc.), so this will probably further consolidation an…
License what? Every available copyrighted work? Even getting a tiny fraction is not practical. To the contrary, this just means companies can't make money from these models. Those using models for research and personal use wouldn't be infringing under the fair use tests.
Here's the full decision, which (like most decisions!) is largely written to be legible to non-lawyers: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.721... The core story seems to be: Westlaw writes and owns headnotes that help lawyers find legal cases about a particular topic. Ross paid people to translate those headnotes into new text, trained an AI on the translations, and used those to make a model th…
If the copyright holders win, the model giants will just license. This effectively kills open source, which can't afford to license and won't be able to sublicense training data. This is very bad for democratized access to and development of AI. The giants will probably want this. The giants were already purchasing legacy media content enterprises (Amazon and MGM, etc.), so this will probably further consolidation an…
Whether or not OpenAI is found to be breaking the law will be utterly irrelevant to actual open AI efforts.