Funny how people are suddenly on Elsevier's side. It's clear to me that AI training is transformative fair use under existing law. Maybe this will be the case to prove it.
I also find it funny, I said this regarding the other thread and article[0]
'"They then copied those stolen fruits"
How are these fruits "stolen" if they still have what was allegedley stolen?
Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985): The Supreme Court ruled that the unauthorized sale of phonorecords of copyrighted musical compositions does not constitute "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" goods under the National Stolen Property Act
And even if, arguendo, sure its stolen. The purpose of copyright is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
And you would be hard pressed to prove that LLM's haven't advanced the arts and sciences, so at bare minimum transformative, ie fair use.'
I find it grating that so many AI boosters try to frame pushing back against the AI industry as a sudden about-face for everyone that spent the last 20 years pushing back against the copyright industry. I’m also in favor of decriminalizing or legalizing small amounts of pot for personal use. That doesn’t mean I’m behind industrialized narcotic production on such a huge scale that it that it starts to distort the economy, and companies looking for new ways to add methamphetamine to every goddamn product.
The items they call out around training the models (and attempting to claim that each subsequent model generation should count as an additional instance of infringement) seem far less grounded in the current court interpretations of AI training.
If i could ask for a summary from an llm vs buy a book id go with the summary. That eats into commercial use and the supreme court case sided with Gerald Ford when a newspaper published a small gist of his autobiography because it ate into the sales
Absorb all "our" IP without consent, in doing so remove "our" own source of revenue, and then repackage it as their own product. Not really fair use IMO.
> It's clear to me that AI training is transformative fair use under existing law. Maybe this will be the case to prove it.
Why did Anthropic settle with a multi-billion dollar payout to authors after monetizing their LLMs that was trained off of pirated copyrighted content?
There is a reason why they did not want it to go to trial. (Anthropic knew they would lose and it would bankrupt them)
AI boosters will do anything to justify the theft and violation of copyrighted material even when they pirate it themselves. That is NOT fair use.
Because meta will delay any case for several years. Then the lawyers will settle for 1/100th to 1/1000th of what they stole quietly. Meta will rebrand and change its name again just like it did after its last major scandal.
No accountability for rich people has funny patterns like this.
In 2024, voters signaled that they don't care about corruption when they reelected the most corrupt administration in American history. Since then, there has been a widespread understanding that the rich will not face consequences in this country. For example, take a look at the Trump administration's suppression of the Epstein files. Or the Trump families cryptocurrency schemes. Or the ridiculous ballroom.
Anyway, the point is - there will be no justice until the citizens of the united states demand it.
What's ridiculous about having a ballroom? Since you care so much about the Epstein files, I assume you leafed through them once they were released. What parts did you find most revealing?
Plenty of rich people in the US are held accountable if they do something illegal. But last time I checked, running for President and winning isn't a crime.
This is quite off-topic though, since Trump has nothing to do with Meta's decisions.
This article doesn’t even remotely itemize all of Trumps corruption, but it’s long and extremely damning.
I would hope that anyone still supporting this administration reads this article and does some introspection on why. I’m guessing that ship probably sailed 6 years ago, though.
Also that there are over 2,000 emails with Peter Thiel. Or maybe the part where Sergey Brin was helping Epstein shop for an aircraft carrier (also after conviction). Honestly it was incredibly revealing that none of these people care that he raped kids. I would love to see the Trump files which were withheld but clearly thats never gonna happen.
Anyway, congrats to everyone involved on the MAGA golden age!
Consider the case of someone who gets banned but Facebook keeps collecting money on their business account. Or consider the case of Facebook's video metrics scandal, or... whatever. It's a little fuzzy translating how much value equates to how much stock price equates to how much real-world is-this-useful-to-me but it does matter when FB is accused of marketing (Aaron Greenspan, thinkcomp, has brought this up, in his 2019 testimony to UK parliament) advertising to more people in a region or country than actually physically exist
So fraud builds on itself, you have more fraud money to pay lawyers to try to defend you in fraud cases
this dude got in over his head with the evil empire, it is interesting how he learned judo and tried to surf, that being said I despise social media and what it did to society
'"They then copied those stolen fruits"
How are these fruits "stolen" if they still have what was allegedley stolen?
Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985): The Supreme Court ruled that the unauthorized sale of phonorecords of copyrighted musical compositions does not constitute "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" goods under the National Stolen Property Act
And even if, arguendo, sure its stolen. The purpose of copyright is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
And you would be hard pressed to prove that LLM's haven't advanced the arts and sciences, so at bare minimum transformative, ie fair use.'
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48026207#48029072
The items they call out around training the models (and attempting to claim that each subsequent model generation should count as an additional instance of infringement) seem far less grounded in the current court interpretations of AI training.
Why did Anthropic settle with a multi-billion dollar payout to authors after monetizing their LLMs that was trained off of pirated copyrighted content?
There is a reason why they did not want it to go to trial. (Anthropic knew they would lose and it would bankrupt them)
AI boosters will do anything to justify the theft and violation of copyrighted material even when they pirate it themselves. That is NOT fair use.
No accountability for rich people has funny patterns like this.
Anyway, the point is - there will be no justice until the citizens of the united states demand it.
Plenty of rich people in the US are held accountable if they do something illegal. But last time I checked, running for President and winning isn't a crime.
This is quite off-topic though, since Trump has nothing to do with Meta's decisions.
This article doesn’t even remotely itemize all of Trumps corruption, but it’s long and extremely damning.
I would hope that anyone still supporting this administration reads this article and does some introspection on why. I’m guessing that ship probably sailed 6 years ago, though.
Also that there are over 2,000 emails with Peter Thiel. Or maybe the part where Sergey Brin was helping Epstein shop for an aircraft carrier (also after conviction). Honestly it was incredibly revealing that none of these people care that he raped kids. I would love to see the Trump files which were withheld but clearly thats never gonna happen.
Anyway, congrats to everyone involved on the MAGA golden age!
> Mark Zuckerberg ‘personally authorized’ Meta’s copyright infringement, *publishers allege*
The question to answer is, did it happen and if so is this copyright infringement (not covered by fair use), not which company official authorized it.
Consider the case of someone who gets banned but Facebook keeps collecting money on their business account. Or consider the case of Facebook's video metrics scandal, or... whatever. It's a little fuzzy translating how much value equates to how much stock price equates to how much real-world is-this-useful-to-me but it does matter when FB is accused of marketing (Aaron Greenspan, thinkcomp, has brought this up, in his 2019 testimony to UK parliament) advertising to more people in a region or country than actually physically exist
So fraud builds on itself, you have more fraud money to pay lawyers to try to defend you in fraud cases