71–80 of 250 posts
If weights and biases contained in "AI models" are prorietary, then for one model owner to detect infingement by another model owner, it may be necessary to download and extract.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not even sure if event the first part is true. Has it been determined if AI models are intellectual property? Machine generated content may not be copyrightable. It isn't just the output of generative AI that falls under this, the models themselves are. Can you copyright a set of coefficients for a formula? In the sense of a JPEG it would be considered that the image being reproduced is the thing that has the cop…
Datasets want to be free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t this comment in the public domain? I presume that’s what I’m doing when I’m posting on a forum. If somebody copied and pasted something I wrote on here could I in theory use copyright law to restrict distribution? I think the law would say I published it on a public forum and thus it is in the public domain.
Why would it be in the public domain? Anything you create, under US copyright law, is the opposite of being in the public domain, it's yours. According to the legalese of YC, you are granting YC and YC alone a license to use the UGC you submitted to their website, but if anything, the YC agreement DEMANDS that you own the copyright to the comment you are posting. > User Content Transmitted Through the Site: With resp…
Many people seem to think that no licence = public domain, but it's still under strong copyright protection. This is the point of things like the Unlicense license.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is interesting. I wonder could you use it as a basis for “legally” circumventing a technology by applying it to non-copyrighted works.
If you mean that you might be able to decrypt a copyrighted work because you used that same encryption method on a non-copyrighted work, then definitely not. The work under protection will be considered. (Otherwise, I am unsure what you meant.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Time shifting is protected by 40 years of judicial precedent establishing it as fair use.
This is being tested in the courts currently, https://torrentfreak.com/appeals-court-hears-riaa-and-yout-i...
I don't think YouTube intended regular uploads to have DRM, if only because they support Creative Commons metadata on uploads, and Creative Commons specifically forbids the use of technical protection measures on CC-licensed content[0]. On a less moralistic note, applying encryption to all YouTube videos would be prohibitively expensive because DRM vendors charge $$$ for the tech.
But the RIAA wants DRM because, well, they don't want people taking what they have rightfully stolen. So YouTube engineered a weak form of URL obfuscation that would only stop very basic scrapers[1]. DMCA 1201 doesn't care about encryption or obfuscation, though. What it does care about is if something was intended to stop copying, and if so, if the defendant's product was designed to defeat that thing.
There's an interesting wrinkle in DMCA 1201 in that merely being able to defeat DRM does not make something illegal. Defeating DRM has to be the tool's only function[2], or you have to advertise the tool as being able to defeat DRM[3], in order to actually violate DMCA 1201. DRM vendors usually resort to encryption, because it makes the circumvention tools specialized enough that they have no other purpose and thus fall afoul of DMCA 1201. But there's nothing stopping you from using really basic schemes (ROT-13 your DVDs!) and still getting to sue for 1201.
Going back to the AI ripping question, this blog post is probably not in and of itself a circumvention tool[4], but anyone implementing it is very much making circumvention tools, which are illegal to distribute. Circumvention itself is also illegal, but only when there's an underlying copyright infringement. i.e. you can't just encrypt something that's public domain or uncopyrightable and sue anyone who decrypts it.
So the next question is: is AI copyrightable? And can you sue for 1201 circumvention for something that is fundamentally composed of someone else's copyrighted work that you don't own and haven't licensed?
[0] Additionally, there is a very large repository of CC-BY music from Kevin MacLeod that is used all over YouTube that would have to be removed or relicensed if the RIAA were to prevail on this case.
I have no idea if Kevin actually intends to enforce the no-DRM clause in this way, though. Kevin actually has a fairly loose interpretation of CC-BY. For example, nobody attributes his music correctly, either the way the license requires, or with Kevin's (legally insufficient) recommended attribution strings. He does sell commercial (non-attribution) licenses but I've yet to hear of any enforcement actions from him.
[1] To be clear, without DRM encryption, any video can be ripped by hooking standard HTML5 video APIs using an extension.
[2] Things with "limited commercial purposes" beyond breaking DRM may also be construed as circumvention tools under DMCA 1201.
[3] My favorite example: someone tried selling a VGA-to-composite adapter as a way to copy movies off Netflix. That is illegal under DMCA 1201.
[4] To be clear, this is NOT settled law, this is "get sued and find out if the Supreme Court likes you that day" law.
You wouldn't train a LLM on a corpus containing copyrighted works without ensuring you had the necessary rights to the works, would you?
Fair use.
Unless all LLM are a ruthless parody of human intelligence, which they may be, the legal issues will continue.
You wouldn't train a LLM on a corpus containing copyrighted works without ensuring you had the necessary rights to the works, would you?