Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nvidia contacted Anna's Archive to access books

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 160 posts

Re: Nvidia contacted Anna's Archive to access books

#51

Post by Nursie »

threethirtytwo wrote: post #46
kalap_ur wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can only read the book, if you purchased it. Even if you dont have the intent to reproduce it, you must purchase it. So, I guess NVDA should just purchase all those books, no?

Yep, I agree. That’s the part that’s clearly illegal. They should purchase the books, but they didn’t.

This is the bit an author friend of mine really hates. They didn’t even buy a copy.

And now AI has killed his day job writing legal summaries. So they took his words without a license and used them to put him out of a job.

Really rubs in that “shit on the little guy” vibe.

Re: Nvidia contacted Anna's Archive to access books

#52

Post by Ferret7446 »

general1465 wrote: post #12
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?

Did you pirated this movie? No I did not, it is fair use because this movie is nothing more than a statistical correlation to my dopamine production.

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

Re: Nvidia contacted Anna's Archive to access books

#53

Post by Ferret7446 »

masfuerte wrote: post #45
NitpickLawyer wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does this even make sense? Are the copyright laws so bad that a statement like this would actually be in NVIDIA’s favor? It makes some sense, yeah. There's also precedent, in google scanning massive amounts of books, but not reproducing them. Most of our current copyright laws deal with reproductions. That's a no-no. It gets murky on the rest. Nvda's argument here is that they're not reproducing the works, they're…

Scanning books is literally reproducing them. Copying books from Anna's Archive is also literally reproducing them. The idea that it is only copyright infringement if you engage in further reproduction is just wrong. As a consumer you are unlikely to be targeted for such "end-user" infringement, but that doesn't mean it's not infringement.

Private reproductions are allowed (e.g. backups). Distributing them non-privately is not.

Re: Nvidia contacted Anna's Archive to access books

#54

Post by thaumasiotes »

general1465 wrote: post #12
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?

Did you pirated this movie? No I did not, it is fair use because this movie is nothing more than a statistical correlation to my dopamine production.

Note that what copyright law prohibits is the action of producing a copy for someone else, not the action of obtaining a copy for yourself.

Re: Nvidia contacted Anna's Archive to access books

#55

Post by amanaplanacanal »

masfuerte wrote: post #45
NitpickLawyer wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does this even make sense? Are the copyright laws so bad that a statement like this would actually be in NVIDIA’s favor? It makes some sense, yeah. There's also precedent, in google scanning massive amounts of books, but not reproducing them. Most of our current copyright laws deal with reproductions. That's a no-no. It gets murky on the rest. Nvda's argument here is that they're not reproducing the works, they're…

Scanning books is literally reproducing them. Copying books from Anna's Archive is also literally reproducing them. The idea that it is only copyright infringement if you engage in further reproduction is just wrong. As a consumer you are unlikely to be targeted for such "end-user" infringement, but that doesn't mean it's not infringement.

It seems like they pretty much don't care unless you distribute the copy. There is certainly precedent for it, going back to the Betamax case in the 1980s.

Re: Nvidia contacted Anna's Archive to access books

#57

Post by masfuerte »

Ferret7446 wrote: post #53
masfuerte wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scanning books is literally reproducing them. Copying books from Anna's Archive is also literally reproducing them. The idea that it is only copyright infringement if you engage in further reproduction is just wrong. As a consumer you are unlikely to be targeted for such "end-user" infringement, but that doesn't mean it's not infringement.

Private reproductions are allowed (e.g. backups). Distributing them non-privately is not.

Backups are permitted (and not for all media) when you legally acquired the source. Scanning a physical book is not a permitted backup, and neither is downloading a book from Anna's archive.

Re: Nvidia contacted Anna's Archive to access books

#58

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

kalap_ur wrote: post #39
threethirtytwo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does make sense. It’s controversial. Your memory memorizes things in the same way. So what nvidia does here is no different, the AI doesn’t actually copy any of the books. To call training illegal is similar to calling reading a book and remembering it illegal. Our copyright laws are nowhere near detailed enough to specify anything in detail here so there is indeed a logical and technical inconsistency here. I can…

You can only read the book, if you purchased it. Even if you dont have the intent to reproduce it, you must purchase it. So, I guess NVDA should just purchase all those books, no?

Obviously not; one can borrow books from libraries and read them as well.
Post reply on HN