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

Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

631–640 of 686 posts

Re: Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge

#631

Post by [deleted] »

x187463 wrote: post #602
Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really feel as if Youtube is the best sort of convenience for music videos where most people watch ads whereas some people can use an ad blocker. I use an adblocker and tbh I think so many people on HN are okay with ad blocking and not piracy when basically both just block the end user from earning money. I kind of believe that if you really like a software, you really like something. Just ask them what their favou…

And somehow actually paying for youtube which fully removes advertising and provides revenue to the service/creators is seen as an utterly absurd proposition by a staggering number of people.

[deleted]

Re: Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge

#632

Post by conradev »

immibis wrote: post #621
conradev wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t buy the music you generate using Suno, though, unless you take action to list it somewhere for sale.

You also can't buy a massage I receive. Does that mean I was sold access to a massage generation tool instead of a massage?

Yes! You were sold a service and not a good, and you cannot copyright the act of the massage itself.

Re: Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge

#634

Post by freejazz »

conradev wrote: post #632
immibis wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also can't buy a massage I receive. Does that mean I was sold access to a massage generation tool instead of a massage?

Yes! You were sold a service and not a good, and you cannot copyright the act of the massage itself.

That's because a massage is not a copyrightable expression (dance is), not because it's sold as a service.

Re: Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge

#635

Post by conradev »

freejazz wrote: post #622
conradev wrote: post #616

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you use a DAW to recreate a favorite song for learning, should the DAW show a warning that you’re infringing on a copyrighted melody? Should it let you make it? Export it? You promise the DAW it’s for personal use? It’s only a matter of time until this stuff is in DAWs. When a general computer using agent recreates songs in Logic Pro in high fidelity, then what? It’s called Fair Use for a reason – we let humans…

I don't think anyone could reasonably characterize a DAW as a tool designed to infringe copyrights with so I don't think there is an issue. The fact that none of the labels have ever sued DAWs for this reason should be an intuition for you on this matter. >It’s called Fair Use for a reason – we let humans Use things generally and ask them to be Fair. So exhausted with people who come to these threads and try to discu…

  DAWs are tools made to create music, generally. They do not contain banks of copyrighted materials to which the user ultimately pulls the copying "trigger" (that's the system I described).
You are quite literally describing sample packs (which are copyrighted). The only difference is that they figured out a fair licensing scheme for those. Is my understanding of copyright law wrong or poor here?

Imagine we invented some new hypothetical technology to take all of the sample packs in the world as input and produce new sample packs that humans haven't thought of before. Should we figure out how to license those packs fairly or pretend we never invented it?

Only so many artists have the patience to make each drum from scratch.

Re: Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge

#636

Post by parliament32 »

const_cast wrote: post #581
parliament32 wrote: post #261

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…

Well I mean you're constructing very convoluted and weak examples. I think, in your example, the obvious answer is no , they're not entitled to any profits of Gravity. How could you possibly prove Gravity has anything to do with someone reading, or not reading, a textbook? You can't. However, AI participates in the exact same markets it trains from. That's obviously very different. It is INTENDED to DIRECTLY replace…

> It is INTENDED to DIRECTLY replace the things it trains on.

Maybe this is where I'm having trouble. You say "exact same markets" -- how is a print book the exact same market as a web/mobile text-generating human-emulating chat companion? If that holds, why can't I say a textbook is the exact same market as a film?

I could see the argument if someone published a product that was fine-tuned on a specific book, and marketed as "use this AI instead of buying this book!", but that's not the case with any of the current services on the market.

I'm not trying to be combative, just trying to understand.. they seem like very different markets to me.

Re: Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge

#637

Post by freejazz »

conradev wrote: post #635
freejazz wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think anyone could reasonably characterize a DAW as a tool designed to infringe copyrights with so I don't think there is an issue. The fact that none of the labels have ever sued DAWs for this reason should be an intuition for you on this matter. >It’s called Fair Use for a reason – we let humans Use things generally and ask them to be Fair. So exhausted with people who come to these threads and try to discu…

DAWs are tools made to create music, generally. They do not contain banks of copyrighted materials to which the user ultimately pulls the copying "trigger" (that's the system I described). You are quite literally describing sample packs (which are copyrighted). The only difference is that they figured out a fair licensing scheme for those. Is my understanding of copyright law wrong or poor here? Imagine we invented s…

Sure, except that sample packs are original materials by their author (as opposed to whatever Suno contains, which is other people's work). And yes, I imagine that sample packs come with a license to use the samples commercially. Otherwise there would be no market for them. I just did some brief searching and it looks like some sample packs even require royalty kick-backs. So, yeah.

Re: Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge

#638

Post by Bjorkbat »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #410
Bjorkbat wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> An individual author doesn't make a meaningful contribution to the training of an LLM, but a large number of popular and/or prolific numbers can. 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 a…

Yeah, this is something I find kind of tricky. I definitely believe that AI companies should get permission from rightsholders to train on their works, but actually compensating them for their works seems pointless. To make the royalties worthwhile you'd have to raise the cost per query to an absolutely absurd level

Re: Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge

#639

Post by parliament32 »

Bjorkbat wrote: post #342
parliament32 wrote: post #261

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…

> it's a good thing that creative professionals have some security in knowing that they have legal protections

This argument would make sense if it was across the board, but it's impossible (and pretty ridiculous) to enforce in basically anything except very narrow types of media.

Let's say I come up with a groundbreaking workout routine. Some guy in the gym watches me for a while, adopts it, then goes on to become some sort of bodybuilding champion. I wouldn't be entitled to a portion of his winnings, that would be ridiculous.

Let's say I come up with a cool new fashion style. Someone sees my posts on insta and starts dressing similarly, then ends up with a massive following and starts making money in a modelling career. I wouldn't be entitled to a portion of their income, that would be ridiculous.

And yet, for some reason, media is special.

Re: Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge

#640

Post by GuB-42 »

pier25 wrote: post #481
conradev wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes! Training and generation are fair use. You are free to train and generate whatever you want in your basement for whatever purpose you see fit. Build a music collection, go ham. If the output from said model uses the voice of another person, for example, we already have a legal framework in place for determining if it is infringing on their rights, independent of AI. Courts have heard cases of individual artists c…

> Yes! But Suno is definitely not training models in their basement for fun. They are a private company selling music, using music made by humans to train their models, to replace human musicians and artists. We'll see what the courts say but that doesn't sound like fair use.

If, as a human artist, I decide to train myself on the discography of a famous artist, then produce songs in his style and sell them for cheap so that others don't have to pay for the original artist, then I am sure it is fair use. It is done all the time.

Now, what if instead of training myself using real instruments, I train my AI and do the same. Is it different?

It is complicated, but there are many arguments in favor of fair use, probably more than they are against but as you say, let's the courts decide.

But in any case, piracy is illegal in every case. As a human, it is illegal for me to use pirate copies, whether it is for training myself as a musician, for training my AI, or for simply listening.

Post reply on HN