You must log in or register to comment.
- Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish19 hours
In fact, as Copyright Lately‘s Aaron Moss points out, even the AI industry called the latest ruling a win, with tech industry group Chamber of Progress senior director of AI Adam Eisgrau tweeting that the ruling “implicitly confirms that highly transformative gen AI training to produce a hugely multi-purpose model with substantial public benefit is likely fair use!”
“We stole even more, so that makes it legal!”
- ATPA9@feddit.orgEnglish11 hours
So it is still legal for me to pirate anything I want as long as i train a small ass AI model on the side with it?
8 hoursRemember to clone a repo for an AI for plausible deniability.
When ask why your consuming the copyrighted material simply say you’re in the quality control phase.
- schipelblorp@sh.itjust.worksEnglish9 hours
This would be a separate issue from piracy
This is more about what you can DO with something you legally purchased. Think film rights. If you want to use a song in your movie, you can’t just go to Tower Records and buy the CD. Buying the CD gives you a right to listen to that CD, but it does not give you the right to use it in your movie.
Likewise, this court argues, having legal access to a work does not give you the right to feed it into an LLM as training data.
It’s a bit like the Muppet Show. The Muppet Show was a bunch of puppets singing along with musical pop stars of the day. But because the show was produced before VHS and DVD were a thing, none of the artists had given permission for them to re-release the show on DVD. So re-releasing the Muppet Show was a tedious process of negotiation with every rights holder (made much less tedious by being purchased by Disney).
But I absolutely hear you and am currently training a small LLM on my favorite TV, movies, and music. Have I started the actual training yet? No. I don’t see the need until I’ve filled up this 15TB HDD with training data so I can do it all in one pass.
- jj4211@lemmy.worldEnglish8 hours
Likewise, this court argues, having legal access to a work does not give you the right to feed it into an LLM as training data.
Seems more narrow than that. If your “AI” just copies the input almost verbatim, then it’s not “transformative”.
Unfortunately they still seem to regard the big players’ consumption as “transformative” enough to not count.
- iuseasahibtw@ani.socialEnglish21 hours
>“How influential the latest appeals court ruling will be is debatable. The court found that Ross had effectively copy-pasted Thomson Reuters’ “headnotes,” or brief editorial summaries of legal issues, verbatim for its legal search engine, a practice that isn’t difficult to separate from fair use.”
>“In fact, as Copyright Lately‘s Aaron Moss points out, even the AI industry called the latest ruling a win, with tech industry group Chamber of Progress senior director of AI Adam Eisgrau tweeting that the ruling “implicitly confirms that highly transformative gen AI training to produce a hugely multi-purpose model with substantial public benefit is likely fair use!””
Looks like the company that got sued just copy pastaed protected content without making any type of change to make it fair use.
Not the “win” anti-AI people were looking for and the article seems to be misunderstood by most.
Seems as long as AI models use some form “transformative” method to train their AI, then it’s fair use.
- FauxLiving@lemmy.worldEnglish22 hours
The headline isn’t correct. This ruling is about a specific element of Fair Use, not a blanket declaration that copyrighted data cannot be used to train models as the headline suggests.
Fair Use requires some conditions be met. The one that wasn’t met here was that the work you’re creating can’t compete with the copyright owner.
From the Reuters article:
“Ross took the headnotes to make it easier to develop a competing legal research tool,” the judge said. “So Ross’s use is not transformative.”
In other cases, for example the Author’s Guild lawsuit against Meta/Anthropic/etc courts have ruled that using books to train LLMs is fair use because LLMs and books don’t compete.
They were required to pay for the books, but not prevented by copyright from using them to train a model.
There’s nothing novel happening in this case from a legal perspective. Maybe this is the first case where the defendant didn’t clear the elements of fair use but those elements predate AI by decades and have been uses in thousands of cases.
- Pacattack57@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
As much as I hate AI, current copyright laws are out of control and are extended well beyond what they should be used for.
- 22 hours
AI is way more out of control than copyright.
There’s simply no way to justify what the AI compies have been doing. As that one Microsoft exec said, it’s the “largest theft of labor” in modern history
- 23 hours
I hate them too but AI is more of a threat to all of us. Any chance at stopping the madness is good enough for me.
I agree, but I fucking hate that it’s AI that’s breaking the concept. First of all, it’s not like it’s a righteous fight, whoever wins, we all lose. Second, as much as I think copywrite is abused like hell, I still think the idea, one closer to the original, has merit and does provide crucial protections for individuals.
Sadly the fucking plagiarism machine and the anti-human dirtbags running it have found the absolute worst possible way to break the system. Ultimately resulting in nothing for us plebes that copywrite should protect and all the benefits that the shit copywrite coroporate power grab produced for them.
- 4am@lemmy.zipEnglish23 hours
As long as we live under capitalism, copyright protects small artists, writers, and creators as much as it protects large shitty corporations who weaponize it.
I’d love to be rid of all intellectual property, but we have a lot to fix before that can become reality without punishing people who rely on it.
I’m down with some huge reforms though.
- Doomsider@lemmy.worldEnglish23 hours
No, not at all. Do you have any idea of how expensive it is to bring a lawsuit? What you are saying about protecting small artists is pure propaganda. Furthermore, this only matters for commercial artist as copyright is never used in 99.999% of real life cases
We will never move forward as long as we allow all of our modern culture and technology to be locked up by corporations through imaginary property rights.
- KeithD@lemmy.nzEnglish22 hours
It also costs money to register a copyright. And if it’s not registered when the copyright infringement happens, statutory damages don’t apply and you need to prove actual damages instead.
- Funkt4st1c@lemmy.worldEnglish22 hours
Its actually mainly used to bully small creators so they can have precedent to go after larger ones.
- skibidi@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
When peasants were able to copy ‘intellectual property’ for personal benefit and enjoyment, it was a massive crime. When the oligarchs can steal - everything - for the slight chance of paying less in wages, it is an innovation.
I think it is pretty much certain the model companies escape any penalty for their mass theft of IP. There will be some settlements and token penalties that sound big on paper, but are nothing compared to the market valuations.
- Grimy@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
Not really. We had collage and training any kind of AI was fine before all this. There’s blood in the water and copyright companies can smell it.
OpenAI is happy to give them a piece of the pie if that means they are the only ones allowed to sell it to consumers.
You are right about the penalty being pennys compared to their profits. It’s not meant to punish them but help them build a moat, the one that got destroyed by China a few months ago.
AI companies spent years treating copyright like a Terms of Service box nobody reads. Now a court has suggested that »we copied it to build a competing product« may not magically become fair use because you sprinkle AI on top. Turns out disruption is slightly less fun when the disrupted people have lawyers.
- schipelblorp@sh.itjust.worksEnglish1 day
Unfortunately, Congress will end up doing whatever its paid to do.
- 1 day
As far as I can tell, the 3rd circuit is just one step below the Supreme Court. So unless they take the case it’s pretty stuck. Congress would have to go above and beyond to change the existing laws to allow it.
Also with midterms coming up congress is going to have a harder time passing a law. Especially if the republicans lose the house or the senate. Then they’d have to get the democrats and the republicans to play ball, vs just one currently.
- 1 day
IMO Disney and other copyright holders have more lobbying power than AI companies at this time.
That said, damages of a winning suit will end up being minuscule compared the revenue these companies have made from said piracy.
- Xerxos@lemmy.mlEnglish12 hours
Big copyright companies are powerful, but the AI bubble is currently holding up the American economy, and there is the AI race with China. Hard to tell how that goes. If Trump wins/cheats his way to a win in the midterms it’s going to be more in favor of AI.
- schipelblorp@sh.itjust.worksEnglish1 day
Remember, Congress makes the laws that courts rule on.
Congress does change legislation for its buddies to get around the court system.
Gun manufacturers have their own little Congressional immunity from lawsuits, for instance, (PLCAA).
- testaccount372920@piefed.zipEnglish16 hours
It’s too late to change the legislation now. The piracy was commited under current law.
- errer@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
Yeah…no. This is going to the Supreme Court and there’s zero chance their right wing, Trump-choad-gargling asses don’t rule in favor of AI companies.
- danc4498@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
I think this should be the reasoning politicians use to make AI companies owned by the public.
These AI models are nothing without all the data they were trained on. All this data is content produced by humans throughout history. AI is the ultimate product of thousands of years of human progress. Why should we allow corporations to be the primary beneficiaries of this?
- 1 day
Agreed… the problem is that the damage is already done and there’s no way to really make it right to the copyright holders so mandating that all AI models and their weights should be treated as public domain would at least help a bit.
- NaibofTabr@infosec.pubEnglish1 day
It actively prevents companies like Disney from using AI generation tools to stamp out movies like assembly line products. They can’t afford to have their movies become public domain at release.
It won’t protect jobs in advertising, because a lot of companies won’t care if their ads become public domain. This might be a problem because a lot of actors get their start in ad bits, and a lot of graphic artists make a living on ad images.
- danc4498@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
Ii think it’s an issue so long as private companies are profiting off the works of other people. If this is public (like a utility of some sort), I’m not sure the copyright claim means as much. I’m sure it would need to be handled in a way still.
AI companies are burning money pits… don’t make me the tax payer the patsy who pays off the unimaginable debts of AI companies.
Given the size of this bubble (WAY bigger than 2007), the taxpayers are going to hold the bag. We might as well force the companies to share the benefits (if any) as well.
Currently, there are no profits, tho.
Either the entire tech industry, and any business that relies on the tech industry (read: most businesses) explode and take modern human society with it… or every human the world over contributes in some part toward letting them continue their death march towards human extinction. What a choice.
- Cheebus@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
but think of the CEOs for a minute, they still gotta run the AI, whether through predatory government contracts or predatory private business
how are they gunna afford their 4th house they visit one week a year?
- 4am@lemmy.zipEnglish1 day
The AI isn’t very useful, that’s a problem. The government will make them public, then the public will own their huge dept. the oligarchs will receive golden parachutes in the form of a buyout and we will get stuck with the bill. Fuck that, make the technofeudalists liquidate at reasonable prices. Give people their homes back. Make them pay to supply clean water everywhere an open-loop DC was constructed. Jail them for terrorism after polluting our skies and attempting to corner the market on information in order to control the populace.
- huquad@lemmy.mlEnglish12 hours
It would be best if they destroyed each other, but perhaps that’s overly optimistic
- Mister_Hangman@lemmy.worldEnglish21 hours
I ficking hope so. Either all profits aren’t privatized and distributed socially or blow the whole thing up.
This is your reminder that in 2026 absolutely ZERO court rulings matter long term except the Supreme Court, which is captured for life by conservatives.
No matter who wins the midterms or even the next election, that is with us for the rest of most of our lives.
What a time to be alive.
- 23 hours
This is why the court MUST be packed. FDR threatened to do it 90 years ago, and the Dems better do it this time or else face another Trump again.
- HasturInYellow@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
It very much is not. It is in effect until the end of the United States. This will be long before most of us die.
The future will be getting very bad very fast and most nation states will collapse in a few decades.
So there’s that I guess.
I think you are DRASTICALLY underestimating how durable fascist regimes are. Without external intervention they can continue for DECADES. Societies don’t just collapse when people get fed up.
- HasturInYellow@lemmy.worldEnglish22 hours
I don’t mean when people are fed up. I mean when millions are starving to death and the firestorms are ravaging our croplands. When the hurricanes give us a Katrina level disaster 6 times a year. When it becomes literally impossible for organized society to maintain itself.
This is happening sooner than you think.
- 19 hours
Modern nation states are a hell of a lot more resilient than what you give them credit for. Look at some of the hardships nations survived during WW2. States can survive even mass famines. How? Simple rule. The police and the army eat first.
- schipelblorp@sh.itjust.worksEnglish1 day
If it’s any comfort, there’s a good chance the sunlight won’t be reaching the suface of the earth for much of 2027, so we won’t be alive for too much longer.
- edgesmash@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
For those (like me) who don’t know what Betteridge’s Law of Headlines is: “Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.”
- dgdft@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
Worth reading the original opinion appealed here: great technical writing and explanation of reasoning by the judge
- grue@lemmy.worldEnglish1 day
All LLM code output is now copyleft because there was GPL stuff in the training data, LOL!
spoiler
(Actually it’s probably all just copyright infringement and not usable at all because of all the conflicting licenses, but a guy can dream…)
- 23 hours
Still doesn’t prevent data mining of forums for, “training.” Still doesn’t give people who’s contributed on forums a check for being of value to big tech. If they cared at all they’d be paying us money to train AI until it’s established. Google is offering points for data rather than money (https://deviceusagestudy.google/signup/invitecode) I only know that because I got a flier in the mail which means they’re desperate to get people to sign up.
- Chef@sh.itjust.worksEnglish8 hours
So they take one extra step. Create a forum. Have a different company mine all the data and repost it to the forum. Then the AI company can mine the forum.
A rule like “forums are ok” is a goatse-sized gaping loophole.
