401–410 of 686 posts
If I was China I would buy every lawyer to drown western AI companies in lawsuits, because it's an easy way to win AI race.
Earlier 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…
If AI companies are allowed to use pirated material to create their products, does it mean that everyone can use pirated software to create products? Where is the line? Also please don't use word "learning", use "creating software using copyrighted materials". Also let's think together how can we prevent AI companies from using our work using technical measures if the law doesn't work?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did they really steal if they didn't deprive anyone of their copy? I don't think copying is theft.
It's copyright infringement, which is not theft, they're legally distinct in the eyes of the law. This is partly why the "you wouldn't download a car" copyright ads were so widely mocked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bad decisions should not be repeated in the name of fair application.
They actually should, because generally an equal playing field is more important that correct law. As an extreme example, consider murder. Obviously it should be illegal, but if it's legal for one group and not for another, the group for which it's illegal will probably be wiped out, having lost the ability to avenge deaths in the group. It's much more important that laws are applied impartially and equally than that…
Anyone else thinks destroying books for any reason is wrong ? Or is it perhaps not an universal cultural/moral aspect ? I guess for example in Europe people could be more sensitive to it.
Earlier 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…
> buying, physically cutting up, physically digitizing books, and using them for training is fair use So Suno would only really need to buy the physical albums and rip them to be able to generate music at an industrial scale?
Do keep in mind though: this is only for the wealthy. They're still going to send the Pinkertons at your house if you dare copy a Blu-ray.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> illegally copying and selling pirated software This is very different to what Anthropic did. Nobody was buying copies of books from Anthropic instead of the copyright holder.
I wouldn't be so sure about that statement, no one has ruled on the output of Anthropic's AI yet. If their AI spits out the original copy of the book then it is practically the same as buying a book from them instead of the copyright holder. We've only dealt with the fairly straight-forward legal questions so far. This legal battle is still far from being settled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a consideration of impact on the potential market for a rightsholder's present and future works This is one of those mental gymnastics exercises that makes copyright law so obtuse and effectively unenforceable. As an alternative, imagine a scriptwriter buys a textbook on orbital mechanics, while writing Gravity (2013). A large number of people watch the finished film, and learn something about orbital mechanics, th…
Personally I think a more effective analogy would be if someone used a textbook and created an online course / curriculum effective enough that colleges stop recommending the purchase of said textbook. It's honestly pretty difficult to imagine a movie having a meaningful impact on the sale of textbooks since they're required for high school / college courses. So here's the thing, I don't think a textbook author going…
That's a point I normally use to argue against authors being entitled to royalties on LLM outputs. An individual author's marginal contribution to an LLM is essentially nil, and could be removed from the training set with no meaningful impact on the model. It's only the accumulation of a very large amount of works that turns into a capable LLM.