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

661–670 of 686 posts

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

#661

Post by trinsic2 »

jimbob21 wrote: post #161
trinsic2 wrote: post #152

I'm not seeing how this is fair use in either case. Someone correct me if I am wrong but aren't these works being digitized and transformed in a way to make a profit off of the information that is included in these works? It would be one thing for an individual to make person use of one or more books, but you got to have some special blindness not to see that a for-profit company's use of this information to improve…

They clearly were being digitized, but I think its a more philosophical discussion that we're only banging our heads against for the first time to say whether or not it is fair use. Simply, if the models can think then it is no different than a person reading many books and building something new from their learnings. Digitization is just memory. If the models cannot think then it is meaningless digital regurgitation…

In my mind, there is a difference between a person using there own creative thinking to create a derivative work from learning about a subject and making money off of it versus a corporation with a language model that is designed to absorb the works of the entire planet and redisrubtes that information in away that puts them in a centralized position to become an authority on information. With a person, there is a certain responsibility one has to create meaning from that work so that others can experience it. For-profit companies are like machines that have no interest in the creative expression part of this process hence there is a concern that they do not have the best interests of the public at heart.

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

#662

Post by trinsic2 »

pavon wrote: post #243
palmotea wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Simply, if the models can think then it is no different than a person reading many books and building something new from their learnings. No, that's fallacious. Using anthropomorphic words to describe a machine does not give it the same kinds of rights and affordances we give real people.

The judge did use some language that analogized the training with human learning. I don't read it as basing the legal judgement on anthropomorphizing the LLM though, but rather discussing whether it would be legal for a human to do the same thing, then it is legal for a human to use a computer to do so. First, Authors argue that using works to train Claude’s underlying LLMs was like using works to train any person to…

Yeah I see the point, but is still thing there is a differnce between human learning and machine learning creatively, see my post above connected to the parent.

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

#663

Post by kbelder »

fivestones wrote: post #611
kbelder wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have purposefully destroyed one book in my life, in order to prevent anyone from reading it: Man of Two Worlds by Brian Herbert. ...and I did the world a favor.

Just looked this up and now I might read it, ostensibly because of the fact that you destroyed it.

I'm sorry to do that to you, and may God have mercy on your soul.

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

#664

Post by wkat4242 »

cmiles74 wrote: post #409
armada651 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s very unlikely that Claude will verbatim reproduce an entire book from its training corpus. If that’s the bar, they are pretty safe in my opinion.

That's the old law on copyright infringement though. I don't think we can avoid widening this with the rise of AI. The way that AI competes with content creators but gives nothing back, it should be more limited. And I think it will be here in the EU.

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

#665

Post by wkat4242 »

rvnx wrote: post #251
codedokode wrote: post #246

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?

~1B USD in cash is the line where laws apply very differently

Especially in the US

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

#666

Post by musicale »

conradev wrote: post #479
pier25 wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

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…

> Copyright law is a lot more nuanced than anyone seems to have the attention span for.

Copyright is probably the wrong body of law for regulating AI companies.

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

#667

Post by musicale »

conradev wrote: post #515
pier25 wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

My understanding is that Suno does not sell music , but instead makes a tool for musicians to generate music and sells access to this tool . The law doesn't distinguish between basement and cloud – it's a service. You can sell access to the service without selling songs to consumers.

We don't infringe - we just sell a service that enables users to create infringing works on demand.

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

#668

Post by x187463 »

akimbostrawman wrote: post #605
x187463 wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe because they don't want to reward Google for continuously running Youtube into the ground while still being worse than the free alternatives. Not to mention that they already watering down permium with premium lite, I give it two tears before you need to get premium+ to not see ads.

Then don't use the service? Use one of the 'better' free alternatives. Let's see how long they remain free once (if) they actually see a meaningful amount of traffic. Complaining about advertising while using a service for which you pay nothing is immature and unreasonable. I hate advertising and have done everything I can to remove it from my life. That means paying for services that I enjoy using. I would rather provide value to the business via money than ad attention.

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

#669

Post by Imustaskforhelp »

x187463 wrote: post #668
akimbostrawman wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe because they don't want to reward Google for continuously running Youtube into the ground while still being worse than the free alternatives. Not to mention that they already watering down permium with premium lite, I give it two tears before you need to get premium+ to not see ads.

Then don't use the service? Use one of the 'better' free alternatives. Let's see how long they remain free once (if) they actually see a meaningful amount of traffic. Complaining about advertising while using a service for which you pay nothing is immature and unreasonable. I hate advertising and have done everything I can to remove it from my life. That means paying for services that I enjoy using. I would rather pr…

Yes, The amount of traffic that youtube can sustain is really wild.

But yea one of the smallest nitpicks I have with them is the algorithm since its a hit or miss. Sure you can remove the algorithm completely but I would really wish if I could ask something like their SOTA AI models (Gemini) to make my algorithm for me right within youtube and I can say things like No clickbait etc.

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

#670

Post by amlib »

nh23423fefe wrote: post #643
amlib wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are tons of injustices committed by the legal system, laws protecting big corporations in detriment to society is pretty common.
Post reply on HN