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

641–650 of 686 posts

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

#641

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…

I come to copyright threads because I think Section 1201 of the DMCA is in direct violation of the Hacker Manifesto.

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

#642

Post by seuraughty »

dehrmann wrote: post #195

The important parts: > Alsup ruled that Anthropic's use of copyrighted books to train its AI models was "exceedingly transformative" and qualified as fair use > "All Anthropic did was replace the print copies it had purchased for its central library with more convenient space-saving and searchable digital copies for its central library — without adding new copies, creating new works, or redistributing existing copies…

Feels like information laundering to me.

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

#643

Post by nh23423fefe »

amlib wrote: post #378
nh23423fefe wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What point are you making? 20 years ago, someone sold pirated copies of software (wheres the transformation here) and that's the same as using books in a training set? Judge already said reading isnt infringement. This is reaching at best.

Aren't you comparing the wrong things? First example is about the output/outcome, what is the equivalent for LLMs? Also, not all "pirated" things are sold, most are in fact distributed for free. "Pirates" also transform the works they distribute. They crack it, translate it, compress it to decrease download times, remove unnecessary things, make it easier to download by splitting it in chunks (essential with dial-up,…

its legal because a judge said so.

your piracy apologetics are obviously irrelevant.

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

#644

Post by blocko »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #372
blocko wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on how closely that person can reproduce the original work without license or attribution

It actually depends on whether or not they reproduce it and especially what they do with the copy after making it.

Sure. I'd say reproducing and distributing it to someone who happens to ask the right questions would qualify

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

#645

Post by freejazz »

conradev wrote: post #641
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…

I come to copyright threads because I think Section 1201 of the DMCA is in direct violation of the Hacker Manifesto.

I don't think 1201 is invoked in this case and, as a copyright attorney, I don't really ever see it invoked anyway. I understand you have an axe to grind, but I don't see how your approach makes sense. Further, I'm not sure what obligation the law as to the "Hacker Manifesto" that it should be of any consequence anyway. All sorts of laws run against the manifesto. So what? The point of the manifesto wasn't to behave lawfully anyway, right? It's also my experience that so much of this copyright discourse is centered on incorrect assumptions about copyright that these axe-grinding missions are really counterproductive. I don't find it very productive to engage with posters who assume the conclusion that something is wrong and do not regard any of the related details or nuance.

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

#646

Post by conradev »

freejazz wrote: post #645
conradev wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I come to copyright threads because I think Section 1201 of the DMCA is in direct violation of the Hacker Manifesto.

I don't think 1201 is invoked in this case and, as a copyright attorney, I don't really ever see it invoked anyway. I understand you have an axe to grind, but I don't see how your approach makes sense. Further, I'm not sure what obligation the law as to the "Hacker Manifesto" that it should be of any consequence anyway. All sorts of laws run against the manifesto. So what? The point of the manifesto wasn't to behave…

I'm genuinely trying to engage and I'm curious where my preconceptions are "fundamentally wrong" versus not understanding "what makes a dance copyrightable where a massage is not".

Where are you on the continuum? Regarding training an AI model in my basement on purchased music, do you think I should:

- Not be allowed to train it

- Not be allowed to run it

- Not be allowed to share outputs from it anywhere

- Not be allowed to share outputs from it publicly

- Not be allowed to share outputs from it commercially

- Not be allowed to share its weights for others to run it

Or are you primarily focused on the current legal precedent?

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

#647

Post by KoolKat23 »

nwienert wrote: post #525
KoolKat23 wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The use is to train an AI model. A trillion parameter SOTA model is not substantially comprised of the one copyrighted piece. (If it was a Harry Potter model trained only on Harry Potter books this would be a different story). Embeddings are not copy paste. The last point about market impact would be where they make their argument but it's tenuous. It's not the primary use of AI models and built in prompts try to avo…

I bet it’s pretty easy to reproduce enough of Harry Potter from these models that any judge would see it as not fair use - you’d just have to prompt it in the right way. I’d bet a large sum that when this eventually shakes through the Supreme Court, it won’t be deemed fair use entirely, for the better of the world.

If I use my Microsoft Word processor in the right way I can reproduce it too.

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

#648

Post by dragonwriter »

conradev wrote: post #641
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…

I come to copyright threads because I think Section 1201 of the DMCA is in direct violation of the Hacker Manifesto.

I’m more concerned with the fact that it's, if not a direct violation, an intentional end run around the First Amendment (Fair Use, while enshrined in statute now, being initially established as a limitation on the copyright power derived from the First Amendment.)

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

#649

Post by TeMPOraL »

Bjorkbat wrote: post #638
TeMPOraL wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

The amounts are not the only problem; there's no good way to measure which input in the training contributed to what degree to the output. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out it's fundamentally impossible.

Paying everyone a flat rate per query is probably the only way you could do it; any other approach is either going to be contested as unfair in some way, or will be too costly to implement. But then, a flat rate is only fair if it covers everyone in proportion to the contribution, which will get diluted by the portion of training data that's not obviously attributable, like Internet comments or Wikipedia or public domain stuff or internally generated data, so I doubt authors would see any meaningful royalties from this anyway. The only thing it would do, is to make LLMs much more expensive for the society to use.

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

#650

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

blocko wrote: post #644
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It actually depends on whether or not they reproduce it and especially what they do with the copy after making it.

Sure. I'd say reproducing and distributing it to someone who happens to ask the right questions would qualify

Well, right, but that's different from "can reproduce the original work". I "can" start typing out song lyrics but it doesn't mean that I stole the songs I've listened to.
Post reply on HN