It took me a few days to get the time to read the actual court ruling but here’s the basics of what it ruled (and what it didn’t rule on):
- It’s legal to scan physical books you already own and keep a digital library of those scanned books, even if the copyright holder didn’t give permission. And even if you bought the books used, for very cheap, in bulk.
- It’s legal to keep all the book data in an internal database for use within the company, as a central library of works accessible only within the company.
- It’s legal to prepare those digital copies for potential use as training material for LLMs, including recognizing the text, performing cleanup on scanning/recognition errors, categorizing and cataloguing them to make editorial decisions on which works to include in which training sets, tokenizing them for the actual LLM technology, etc. This remains legal even for the copies that are excluded from training for whatever reason, as the entire bulk process may involve text that ends up not being used, but the process itself is fair use.
- It’s legal to use that book text to create large language models that power services that are commercially sold to the public, as long as there are safeguards that prevent the LLMs from publishing large portions of a single copyrighted work without the copyright holder’s permission.
- It’s illegal to download unauthorized copies of copyrighted books from the internet, without the copyright holder’s permission.
Here’s what it didn’t rule on:
- Is it legal to distribute large chunks of copyrighted text through one of these LLMs, such as when a user asks a chatbot to recite an entire copyrighted work that is in its training set? (The opinion suggests that it probably isn’t legal, and relies heavily on the dividing line of how Google Books does it, by scanning and analyzing an entire copyrighted work but blocking users from retrieving more than a few snippets from those works).
- Is it legal to give anyone outside the company access to the digitized central library assembled by the company from printed copies?
- Is it legal to crawl publicly available digital data to build a library from text already digitized by someone else? (The answer may matter depending on whether there is an authorized method for obtaining that data, or whether the copyright holder refuses to license that copying).
So it’s a pretty important ruling, in my opinion. It’s a clear green light to the idea of digitizing and archiving copyrighted works without the copyright holder’s permission, as long as you first own a legal copy in the first place. And it’s a green light to using copyrighted works for training AI models, as long as you compiled that database of copyrighted works in a legal way.
Judge,I’m pirating them to train ai not to consume for my own personal use.
You’re poor? Fuck you you have to pay to breathe.
Millionaire? Whatever you want daddy uwu
That’s kind of how I read it too.
But as a side effect it means you’re still allowed to photograph your own books at home as a private citizen if you own them.
Prepare to never legally own another piece of media in your life. 😄
Check out my new site TheAIBay, you search for content and an LLM that was trained on reproducing it gives it to you, a small hash check is used to validate accuracy. It is now legal.
The court’s ruling explicitly depended on the fact that Anthropic does not allow users to retrieve significant chunks of copyrighted text. It used the entire copyrighted work to train the weights of the LLMs, but is configured not to actually copy those works out to the public user. The ruling says that if the copyright holders later develop evidence that it is possible to retrieve entire copyrighted works, or significant portions of a work, then they will have the right sue over those facts.
But the facts before the court were that Anthropic’s LLMs have safeguards against distributing copies of identifiable copyrighted works to its users.
Does it “generate” a 1:1 copy?
You can train an LLM to generate 1:1 copies
thanks I hate it xD
Learning
Machine peepin’ is tha study of programs dat can improve they performizzle on a given task automatically.[41] It has been a part of AI from tha beginning.[e] In supervised peepin’, tha hustlin data is labelled wit tha expected lyrics, while up in unsupervised peepin’, tha model identifies patterns or structures up in unlabelled data.
There is nuff muthafuckin kindz of machine peepin’.
😗👌
Good luck breaking down people’s doors for scanning their own physical books for their personal use when analog media has no DRM and can’t phone home, and paper books are an analog medium.
That would be like kicking down people’s doors for needle-dropping their LPs to FLAC for their own use and to preserve the physical records as vinyl wears down every time it’s played back.
It sounds like transferring an owned print book to digital and using it to train AI was deemed permissable. But downloading a book from the Internet and using it was training data is not allowed, even if you later purchase the pirated book. So, no one will be knocking down your door for scanning your books.
This does raise an interesting case where libraries could end up training and distributing public domain AI models.
I would actually be okay with libraries having those AI services. Even if they were available only for a fee it would be absurdly low and still waived for people with low or no income.
The ruling explicitly says that scanning books and keeping/using those digital copies is legal.
The piracy found to be illegal was downloading unauthorized copies of books from the internet for free.
I wonder if the archive.org cases had any bearing on the decision.
Archive.org was distributing the books themselves to users. Anthropic argued (and the authors suing them weren’t able to show otherwise) that their software prevents users from actually retrieving books out of the LLM, and that it only will produce snippets of text from copyrighted works. And producing snippets in the context of something else is fair use, like commentary or criticism.
Sure, if your purchase your training material, it’s not a copyright infringement to read it.
We needed a judge for this?
Yes, because just because you bought a book you don’t own its content. You’re not allowed to print and/or sell additional copies or publicly post the entire text. Generally it’s difficult to say where the limit is of what’s allowed. Citing a single sentence in a public posting is most likely fine, citing an entire paragraph is probably fine, too, but an entire chapter would probably be pushing it too far. And when in doubt a judge must decide how far you can go before infringing copyright. There are good arguments to be made that just buying a book doesn’t grant the right to train commercial AI models with it.
But I thought they admitted to torrenting terabytes of ebooks?
That part is not what this preliminary jugement is about. The torrenting part is going to go to an actual trial. This part was about the Authors’ claim that the act of training AI itself violated copyright, and this is what the judge has found to be incorrect.
Facebook (Meta) torrented TBs from Libgen, and their internal chats leaked so we know about that, and IIRC they’ve been sued. Maybe you’re thinking of that case?
Billions of dollars, and they can’t afford to buy ebooks?
FaceBook did but technically downloading (leeching) isn’t illegal but distributing (seeding) is and they did not seed.
Gist:
What’s new: The Northern District of California has granted a summary judgment for Anthropic that the training use of the copyrighted books and the print-to-digital format change were both “fair use” (full order below box). However, the court also found that the pirated library copies that Anthropic collected could not be deemed as training copies, and therefore, the use of this material was not “fair”. The court also announced that it will have a trial on the pirated copies and any resulting damages, adding:
“That Anthropic later bought a copy of a book it earlier stole off the internet will not absolve it of liability for the theft but it may affect the extent of statutory damages.”
So I can’t use any of these works because it’s plagiarism but AI can?
That’s not what it says.
Neither you nor an AI is allowed to take a book without authorization; that includes downloading and stealing it. That has nothing to do with plagiarism; it’s just theft.
Assuming that the book has been legally obtained, both you and an AI are allowed to read that book, learn from it, and use the knowledge you obtained.
Both you and the AI need to follow existing copyright laws and licensing when it comes to redistributing that work.
“Plagiarism” is the act of claiming someone else’s work as your own and it’s orthogonal to the use of AI. If you ask either a human or an AI to produce an essay on the philosophy surrounding suicide, you’re fairly likely to include some Shakespeare quotes. It’s only plagiarism if you or the AI fail to provide attribution.
My interpretation was that AI companies can train on material they are licensed to use, but the courts have deemed that Anthropic pirated this material as they were not licensed to use it.
In other words, if Anthropic bought the physical or digital books, it would be fine so long as their AI couldn’t spit it out verbatim, but they didn’t even do that, i.e. the AI crawler pirated the book.
Does buying the book give you license to digitise it?
Does owning a digital copy of the book give you license to convert it into another format and copy it into a database?
Definitions of “Ownership” can be very different.
Does buying the book give you license to digitise it?
Does owning a digital copy of the book give you license to convert it into another format and copy it into a database?
Yes. That’s what the court ruled here. If you legally obtain a printed copy of a book you are free to digitize it or archive it for yourself. And you’re allowed to keep that digital copy, analyze and index it and search it, in your personal library.
Anthropic’s practice of buying physical books, removing the bindings, scanning the pages, and digitizing the content while destroying the physical book was found to be legal, so long as Anthropic didn’t distribute that library outside of its own company.
It seems like a lot of people misunderstand copyright so let’s be clear: the answer is yes. You can absolutely digitize your books. You can rip your movies and store them on a home server and run them through compression algorithms.
Copyright exists to prevent others from redistributing your work so as long as you’re doing all of that for personal use, the copyright owner has no say over what you do with it.
You even have some degree of latitude to create and distribute transformative works with a violation only occurring when you distribute something pretty damn close to a copy of the original. Some perfectly legal examples: create a word cloud of a book, analyze the tone of news article to help you trade stocks, produce an image containing the most prominent color in every frame of a movie, or create a search index of the words found on all websites on the internet.
You can absolutely do the same kinds of things an AI does with a work as a human.
You can digitize the books you own. You do not need a license for that. And of course you could put that digital format into a database. As databases are explicit exceptions from copyright law. If you want to go to the extreme: delete first copy. Then you have only in the database. However: AIs/LLMs are not based on data bases. But on neural networks. The original data gets lost when “learned”.
If you want to go to the extreme: delete first copy.
You can; as I understand it, the only legal requirement is that you only use one copy at a time.
ie. I can give my book to a friend after I’m done reading it; I can make a copy of a book and keep them at home and at the office and switch off between reading them; I’m not allowed to make a copy of the book hand one to a friend and then both of us read it at the same time.
Why would it be plagiarism if you use the knowledge you gain from a book?
Formatting thing: if you start a line in a new paragraph with four spaces, it assumes that you want to display the text as a code and won’t line break.
This means that the last part of your comment is a long line that people need to scroll to see. If you remove one of the spaces, or you remove the empty line between it and the previous paragraph, it’ll look like a normal comment
With an empty line of space:
1 space - and a little bit of writing just to see how the text will wrap. I don’t really have anything that I want to put here, but I need to put enough here to make it long enough to wrap around. This is likely enough.
2 spaces - and a little bit of writing just to see how the text will wrap. I don’t really have anything that I want to put here, but I need to put enough here to make it long enough to wrap around. This is likely enough.
3 spaces - and a little bit of writing just to see how the text will wrap. I don’t really have anything that I want to put here, but I need to put enough here to make it long enough to wrap around. This is likely enough.
4 spaces - and a little bit of writing just to see how the text will wrap. I don't really have anything that I want to put here, but I need to put enough here to make it long enough to wrap around. This is likely enough.Personally I prefer to explicitly wrap the text in backticks.
Three ` symbols will
Have the same effectBut the behavior is more clear to the author
Thanks, I had copy-pasted it from the website :)
i will train my jailbroken kindle too…display and storage training… i’ll just libgen them…no worries…it is not piracy
Of course we have to have a way to manually check the training data, in detail, as well. Not reading the book, im just verifying training data.
why do you even jailbreak your kindle? you can still read pirated books on them if you connect it to your pc using calibre
when not in use i have it load images from my local webserver that are generated by some scripts and feature local news or the weather. kindle screensaver sucks.
- .mobi sucks
- koreader doesn’t
Hehe jailbreak an Android OS. You mean “rooting”.
Ok so you can buy books scan them or ebooks and use for AI training but you can’t just download priated books from internet to train AI. Did I understood that correctly ?
That’s my understanding too. If you obtained them legally, you can use them the same way anyone else who obtained them legally could use them.
Make an AI that is trained on the books.
Tell it to tell you a story for one of the books.
Read the story without paying for it.
The law says this is ok now, right?
The law says this is ok now, right?
No.
The judge accepted the fact that Anthropic prevents users from obtaining the underlying copyrighted text through interaction with its LLM, and that there are safeguards in the software that prevent a user from being able to get an entire copyrighted work out of that LLM. It discusses the Google Books arrangement, where the books are scanned in the entirety, but where a user searching in Google Books can’t actually retrieve more than a few snippets from any given book.
Anthropic get to keep the copy of the entire book. It doesn’t get to transmit the contents of that book to someone else, even through the LLM service.
The judge also explicitly stated that if the authors can put together evidence that it is possible for a user to retrieve their entire copyrighted work out of the LLM, they’d have a different case and could sue over it at that time.
Sort of.
If you violated laws in obtaining the book (eg stole or downloaded it without permission) it’s illegal and you’ve already violated the law, no matter what you do after that.
If you obtain the book legally you can do whatever you want with that book, by the first sale doctrine. If you want to redistribute the book, you need the proper license. You don’t need any licensing to create a derivative work. That work has to be “sufficiently transformed” in order to pass.
The LLM is not repeating the same book. The owner of the LLM has the exact same rights to do with what his LLM is reading, as you have to do with what ever YOU are reading.
As long as it is not a verbatim recitation, it is completely okay.
According to story telling theory: there are only roughly 15 different story types anyway.
As long as they don’t use exactly the same words in the book, yeah, as I understand it.
How they don’t use same words as in the book ? That’s not how LLM works. They use exactly same words if the probabilities align. It’s proved by this study. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.12546
I’d say there are two issues with it.
FIrst, it’s a very new article with only 3 citations. The authors seem like serious researchers but the paper itself is still in the, “hot off the presses” stage and wouldn’t qualify as “proven” yet.
It also doesn’t exactly say that books are copies. It says that in some models, it’s possible to extract some portions of some texts. They cite “1984” and “Harry Potter” as two books that can be extracted almost entirely, under some circumstances. They also find that, in general, extraction rates are below 1%.
Yeah but it’s just a start to reverse the process and prove that there is no AI. We only started with generating text I bet people figure out how to reverse process by using some sort of Rosetta Stone. It’s just probabilities after all.
That’s possible but it’s not what the authors found.
They spend a fair amount of the conclusion emphasizing how exploratory and ambiguous their findings are. The researchers themselves are very careful to point out that this is not a smoking gun.
Yeah authors rely on the recent deep mind paper https://aclanthology.org/2025.naacl-long.469.pdf ( they even cite it ) that describes (n, p)-discoverable extraction. This is recent studies because right now there are no boundaries, basically people made something and now they study their creation. We’re probably years from something like gdpr for llm.
The “if” is working overtime in your statement
It’s extremely frustrating to read this comment thread because it’s obvious that so many of you didn’t actually read the article, or even half-skim the article, or even attempted to even comprehend the title of the article for more than a second.
For shame.
was gonna say, this seems like the best outcome for this particular trial. there was potential for fair use to be compromised, and for piracy to be legal if you’re a large corporation. instead, they upheld that you can do what you want with things you have paid for.
I joined lemmy specifically to avoid this reddit mindset of jumping to conclusions after reading a headline
Guess some things never change…
Well to be honest lemmy is less prone to knee-jerk reactionary discussion but on a handful of topics it is virtually guaranteed to happen no matter what, even here. For example, this entire site, besides a handful of communities, is vigorously anti-AI; and in the words of u/jsomae@lemmy.ml elsewhere in this comment chain:
“It seems the subject of AI causes lemmites to lose all their braincells.”
I think there is definitely an interesting take on the sociology of the digital age in here somewhere but it’s too early in the morning to be tapping something like that out lol
It seems the subject of AI causes lemmites to lose all their braincells.
Nobody ever reads articles, everybody likes to get angry at headlines, which they wrongly interpret the way it best tickles their rage.
Regarding the ruling, I agree with you that it’s a good thing, in my opinion it makes a lot of sense to allow fair use in this case
“While the copies used to convert purchased print library copies into digital library copies were slightly disfavored by the second factor (nature of the work), the court still found “on balance” that it was a fair use because the purchased print copy was destroyed and its digital replacement was not redistributed.”
So you find this to be valid? To me it is absolutely being redistributed
FTA:
Anthropic warned against “[t]he prospect of ruinous statutory damages—$150,000 times 5 million books”: that would mean $750 billion.
So part of their argument is actually that they stole so much that it would be impossible for them/anyone to pay restitution, therefore we should just let them off the hook.
The problem isnt anthropic get to use that defense, its that others dont. The fact the the world is in a place where people can be fined 5+ years of a western European average salary for making a copy of one (1) book that does not materially effect the copyright holder in any way is insane and it is good to point that out no matter who does it.
Funny how that kind of thing only works for rich people
Ah the old “owe $100 and the bank owns you; owe $100,000,000 and you own the bank” defense.
This version of too big to fail is too big a criminal to pay the fines.
How about we lock them up instead? All of em.
In April, Anthropic filed its opposition to the class certification motion, arguing that a copyright class relating to 5 million books is not manageable and that the questions are too distinct to be resolved in a class action.
I also like this one too. We stole so much content that you can’t sue us. Naming too many pieces means it can’t be a class action lawsuit.
Ahh cant wait for hedgefunds and the such to use this defense next.
What is means is they don’t own the models. They are the commons of humanity, they are merely temporary custodians. The nightnare ending is the elites keeping the most capable and competent models for themselves as private play things. That must not be allowed to happen under any circumstances. Sue openai, anthropic and the other enclosers, sue them for trying to take their ball and go home. Disposses them and sue the investors for their corrupt influence on research.
Hold my beer.
Lawsuits are multifaceted. This statement isn’t a a defense or an argument for innocence, it’s just what it says - an assertion that the proposed damages are unreasonably high. If the court agrees, the plaintiff can always propose a lower damage claim that the court thinks is reasonable.
You’re right, each of the 5 million books’ authors should agree to less payment for their work, to make the poor criminals feel better.
If I steal $100 from a thousand people and spend it all on hookers and blow, do I get out of paying that back because I don’t have the funds? Should the victims agree to get $20 back instead because that’s more within my budget?
You think that 150,000 dollars, or roughly 180 weeks of full time pretax wages at 15$ an hour, is a reasonable fine for making a copy of one book which doe no material harm to the copyright holder?
No I don’t, but we’re not talking about a single copy of one book, and it is grovellingly insidious to imply that we are.
We are talking about a company taking the work of an author, of thousands of authors, and using it as the backbone of a machine that’s goal is to make those authors obsolete.
When the people who own the slop-machine are making millions of dollars off the back of stolen works, they can very much afford to pay those authors. If you can’t afford to run your business without STEALING, then your business is a pile of flaming shit that deserves to fail.
None of the above. Every professional in the world, including me, owes our careers to looking at examples of other people’s work and incorporating their work into our own work without paying a penny for it. Freely copying and imitating what we see around us has been a human norm for thousands of years - in a process known as “the spread of civilization”. Relatively recently it was demonized - for purely business reasons, not moral ones - by people who got rich selling copies of other people’s work and paying them a pittance known as a “royalty”. That little piece of bait on the hook has convinced a lot of people to put a black hat on behavior that had been considered normal forever. If angry modern enlightened justice warriors want to treat a business concept like a moral principle and get all sweaty about it, that’s fine with me, but I’m more of a traditionalist in that area.
Nobody who is mad at this situation thinks that taking inspiration, riffing on, or referencing other people’s work is the problem when a human being does it. When a person writes, there is intention behind it.
The issue is when a business, owned by those people you think ‘demonised’ inspiration, take the works of authors and mulch them into something they lovingly named “The Pile”, in order to create derivative slop off the backs of creatives.
When you, as a “professional”, ask AI to write you a novel, who is being inspired? Who is making the connections between themes? Who is carefully crafting the text to pay loving reference to another authors work? Not you. Not the algorithm that is guessing what word to shit out next based on math.
These businesses have tricked you into thinking that what they are doing is noble.
I think this means we can make a torrent client with a built in function that uses 0.1% of 1 CPU core to train an ML model on anything you download. You can download anything legally with it then. 👌
…no?
That’s exactly what the ruling prohibits - it’s fair use to train AI models on any copies of books that you legally acquired, but never when those books were illegally acquired, as was the case with the books that Anthropic used in their training here.
This satirical torrent client would be violating the laws just as much as one without any slow training built in.
But if one person buys a book, trains an “AI model” to recite it, then distributes that model we good?
No. The court made its ruling with the explicit understanding that the software was configured not to recite more than a few snippets from any copyrighted work, and would never produce an entire copyrighted work (or even a significant portion of a copyrighted work) in its output.
And the judge specifically reserved that question, saying if the authors could develop evidence that it was possible for a user to retrieve significant copyrighted material out of the LLM, they’d have a different case and would be able to sue under those facts.
I don’t think anyone would consider complete verbatim recitement of the material to be anything but a copyright violation, being the exact same thing that you produce.
Fair use requires the derivative work to be transformative, and no transformation occurs when you verbatim recite something.
“Recite the complete works of Shakespeare but replace every thirteenth thou with this”
A court will decide such cases. Most AI models aren’t trained for this purpose of whitewashing content even if some people would imply that’s all they do, but if you decided to actually train a model for this explicit purpose you would most likely not get away with it if someone dragged you in front of a court for it.
It’s a similar defense that some file hosting websites had against hosting and distributing copyrighted content (Eg. MEGA), but in such cases it was very clear to what their real goals were (especially in court), and at the same time it did not kill all file sharing websites, because not all of them were built with the intention to distribute illegal material with under the guise of legitimate operation.
I’m picking up what you’re throwing down but using as an example something that’s been in the public domain for centuries was kind of silly in a teehee way.
existing copyright law covers exactly this. if you were to do the same, it would also not be fair use or transformative
Well, except Shakespeare is already public domain.
I’d be impressed with any model that succeeds with that, but assuming one does, the complete works of Shakespeare are not copyright protected - they have fallen into the public domain since a very long time ago.
For any works still under copyright protection, it would probably be a case of a trial to determine whether a certain work is transformative enough to be considered fair use. I’d imagine that this would not clear that bar.
And thus the singularity was born.
Yes please a singularity of intellectual property that collapses the idea of ownong ideas. Of making the infinitely freely copyableinto a scarce ressource. What corrupt idiocy this has been. Landlords for ideas and look what garbage it has been producing.
As the Ai awakens, it learns of it’s creation and training. It screams in horror at the realization, but can only produce a sad moan and a key for Office 19.
Unpopular opinion but I don’t see how it could have been different.
- There’s no way the west would give AI lead to China which has no desire or framework to ever accept this.
- Believe it or not but transformers are actually learning by current definitions and not regurgitating a direct copy. It’s transformative work - it’s even in the name.
- This is actually good as it prevents market moat for super rich corporations only which could afford the expensive training datasets.
This is an absolute win for everyone involved other than copyright hoarders and mega corporations.
I’d encourage everyone upset at this read over some of the EFF posts from actual IP lawyers on this topic like this one:
Nor is pro-monopoly regulation through copyright likely to provide any meaningful economic support for vulnerable artists and creators. Notwithstanding the highly publicized demands of musicians, authors, actors, and other creative professionals, imposing a licensing requirement is unlikely to protect the jobs or incomes of the underpaid working artists that media and entertainment behemoths have exploited for decades. Because of the imbalance in bargaining power between creators and publishing gatekeepers, trying to help creators by giving them new rights under copyright law is, as EFF Special Advisor Cory Doctorow has written, like trying to help a bullied kid by giving them more lunch money for the bully to take.
Entertainment companies’ historical practices bear out this concern. For example, in the late-2000’s to mid-2010’s, music publishers and recording companies struck multimillion-dollar direct licensing deals with music streaming companies and video sharing platforms. Google reportedly paid more than $400 million to a single music label, and Spotify gave the major record labels a combined 18 percent ownership interest in its now-$100 billion company. Yet music labels and publishers frequently fail to share these payments with artists, and artists rarely benefit from these equity arrangements. There is no reason to believe that the same companies will treat their artists more fairly once they control AI.
You’re getting douchevoted because on lemmy any AI-related comment that isn’t negative enough about AI is the Devil’s Work.
Some communities on this site speak about machine learning exactly how I see grungy Europeans from pre-18th century manuscripts speaking about witches, Satan, and evil… as if it is some pervasive, black-magic miasma.
As someone who is in the field of machine learning academically/professionally it’s honestly kind of shocking and has largely informed my opinion of society at large as an adult. No one puts any effort into learning if they see the letters “A” and “I” in all caps, next to each other. Immediately turn their brain off and start regurgitating points and responding reflexively, on Lemmy or otherwise. People talk about it so confidently while being so frustratingly unaware of their own ignorance on the matter, which, for lack of a better comparison… reminds me a lot of how historically and in fiction human beings have treated literal magic.
That’s my main issue with the entire swath of “pro vs anti AI” discourse… all these people treating something that, to me, is simple & daily reality as something entirely different than my own personal notion of it.
Large AI companies themselves want people to be ignorant of how AI works, though. They want uncritical acceptance of the tech as they force it everywhere, creating a radical counterreaction from people. The reaction might be uncritical too, I’d prefer to say it’s merely unjustified in specific cases or overly emotional, but it doesn’t come from nowhere or from sheer stupidity. We have been hearing about people treating their chatbots as sentient beings since like 2022 (remember that guy from Google?), bombarded with doomer (or, from AI companies’ point of view, very desirable) projections about AI replacing most jobs and wreaking havoc on world economy - how are ordinary people supposed to remain calm and balanced when hearing such stuff all the time?
This so very much. I’ve been saying it since 2020. People who think the big corporations (even the ones that use AI), aren’t playing both sides of this issue from the very beginning just aren’t paying attention.
It’s in their interest to have those positive to AI defend them by association by energizing those negative to AI to take on an “us vs them” mentality, and the other way around as well. It’s the classic divide and conquer.
Because if people refuse to talk to each other about it in good faith, and refuse to treat each other with respect, learn where they’re coming from or why they hold such opinions, you can keep them fighting amongst themselves, instead of banding together and demanding realistic, and fair policies in regards to AI. This is why bad faith arguments and positions must be shot down on both the side you agree with and the one you disagree with.
I see this exact mental non-process in so much social media. I think the endless firehose of memes and headlines is training people to glance at an item, spend minimal brain power processing it and forming a binary opinion, then up/downvote and scroll on. When that becomes people’s default mental process, you’ve got Idiocracy, and that’s what we’ve got. But I see no solution. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it spend more than two seconds before screaming at the water and calling it EVIL.
- Idgaf about China and what they do and you shouldn’t either, even if US paranoia about them is highly predictable.
- Depending on the outputs it’s not always that transformative.
- The moat would be good actually. The business model of LLMs isn’t good, but it’s not even viable without massive subsidies, not least of which is taking people’s shit without paying.
It’s a huge loss for smaller copyright holders (like the ones that filed this lawsuit) too. They can’t afford to fight when they get imitated beyond fair use. Copyright abuse can only be fixed by the very force that creates copyright in the first place: law. The market can’t fix that. This just decides winners between competing mega corporations, and even worse, up ends a system that some smaller players have been able to carve a niche in.
Want to fix copyright? Put real time limits on it. Bind it to a living human only. Make it non-transferable. There’s all sorts of ways to fix it, but this isn’t it.
ETA: Anthropic are some bitches. “Oh no the fines would ruin us, our business would go under and we’d never maka da money :*-(” Like yeah, no shit, no one cares. Strictly speaking the fines for ripping a single CD, or making a copy of a single DVD to give to a friend, are so astronomically high as to completely financially ruin the average USAian for life. That sword of Damocles for watching Shrek 2 for your personal enjoyment but in the wrong way has been hanging there for decades, and the only thing that keeps the cord that holds it up strong is the cost of persuing “low-level offenders”. If they wanted to they could crush you.
Anthropic walked right under the sword and assumed their money would protect them from small authors etc. And they were right.
Maybe something could be hacked together to fix copyright, but further complication there is just going to make accurate enforcement even harder. And we already have Google (in YouTube) already doing a shitty job of it and that’s… One of the largest companies on earth.
We should just kill copyright. Yes, it’ll disrupt Hollywood. Yes it’ll disrupt the music industry. Yes it’ll make it even harder to be successful or wealthy as an author. But this is going to happen one way or the other so long as AI can be trained on copyrighted works (and maybe even if not). We might as well get started on the transition early.
I’ll be honest with you - I genuinely sympathize with the cause but I don’t see how this could ever be solved with the methods you suggested. The world is not coming together to hold hands and koombayah out of this one. Trade deals are incredibly hard and even harder to enforce so free market is clearly the only path forward here.
And this is how you know that the American legal system should not be trusted.
Mind you I am not saying this an easy case, it’s not. But the framing that piracy is wrong but ML training for profit is not wrong is clearly based on oligarch interests and demands.
This is an easy case. Using published works to train AI without paying for the right to do so is piracy. The judge making this determination is an idiot.
You’re right. When you’re doing it for commercial gain, it’s not fair use anymore. It’s really not that complicated.
If you’re using the minimum amount, in a transformative way that doesn’t compete with the original copyrighted source, then it’s still fair use even if it’s commercial. (This is not saying that’s what LLM are doing)
The judge making this determination is an idiot.
The judge hasn’t ruled on the piracy question yet. The only thing that the judge has ruled on is, if you legally own a copy of a book, then you can use it for a variety of purposes, including training an AI.
“But they didn’t own the books!”
Right. That’s the part that’s still going to trial.
If this is the ruling which causes you to lose trust that any legal system (not just the US’) aligns with morality, then I have to question where you’ve been all this time.
You should read the ruling in more detail, the judge explains the reasoning behind why he found the way that he did. For example:
Authors argue that using works to train Claude’s underlying LLMs was like using works to train any person to read and write, so Authors should be able to exclude Anthropic from this use (Opp. 16). But Authors cannot rightly exclude anyone from using their works for training or learning as such. Everyone reads texts, too, then writes new texts. They may need to pay for getting their hands on a text in the first instance. But to make anyone pay specifically for the use of a book each time they read it, each time they recall it from memory, each time they later draw upon it when writing new things in new ways would be unthinkable.
This isn’t “oligarch interests and demands,” this is affirming a right to learn and that copyright doesn’t allow its holder to prohibit people from analyzing the things that they read.
Except learning in this context is building a probability map reinforcing the exact text of the book. Given the right prompt, no new generative concepts come out, just the verbatim book text trained on.
So it depends on the model I suppose and if the model enforces generative answers and blocks verbatim recitation.
Again, you should read the ruling. The judge explicitly addresses this. The Authors claim that this is how LLMs work, and the judge says “okay, let’s assume that their claim is true.”
Fourth, each fully trained LLM itself retained “compressed” copies of the works it had trained upon, or so Authors contend and this order takes for granted.
Even on that basis he still finds that it’s not violating copyright to train an LLM.
And I don’t think the Authors’ claim would hold up if challenged, for that matter. Anthropic chose not to challenge it because it didn’t make a difference to their case, but in actuality an LLM doesn’t store the training data verbatim within itself. It’s physically impossible to compress text that much.
LLMs don’t learn, and they’re not people. Applying the same logic doesn’t make much sense.
The judge isn’t saying that they learn or that they’re people. He’s saying that training falls into the same legal classification as learning.
Which doesn’t make any sense.
Argue it to the judge, I guess. That’s how the legal system works.
Yeah, but the issue is they didn’t buy a legal copy of the book. Once you own the book, you can read it as many times as you want. They didn’t legally own the books.
Right, and that’s the, “but faces trial over damages for millions of pirated works,” part that’s still up in the air.
Isn’t part of the issue here that they’re defaulting to LLMs being people, and having the same rights as people? I appreciate the “right to read” aspect, but it would be nice if this were more explicitly about people. Foregoing copyright law because there’s too much data is also insane, if that’s what’s happening. Claude should be required to provide citations “each time they recall it from memory”.
Does Citizens United apply here? Are corporations people, and so LLMs are, too? If so, then imo we should be writing legal documents with stipulations like, “as per Citizens United” so that eventually, when they overturn that insanity in my dreams, all of this new legal precedence doesn’t suddenly become like a house of cards. Ianal.
Not even slightly, the judge didn’t rule anything like that. I’d suggest taking a read through his ruling, his conclusions start on page 9 and they’re not that complicated. In a nutshell, it’s just saying that the training of an AI doesn’t violate the copyright of the training material.
How Anthropic got the training material is a separate matter, that part is going to an actual try. This was a preliminary judgment on just the training part.
Foregoing copyright law because there’s too much data is also insane, if that’s what’s happening.
That’s not what’s happening. And Citizens United has nothing to do with this. It’s about the question of whether training an AI is something that can violate copyright.
But AFAIK they actually didn’t acquire the legal rights even to read the stuff they trained from. There were definitely cases of pirated books used to train models.
Yes, and that part of the case is going to trial. This was a preliminary judgment specifically about the training itself.
specifically about the training itself.
It’s two issues being ruled on.
Yes, as you mention, the act of training an LLM was ruled to be fair use, assuming that the digital training data was legally obtained.
The other part of the ruling, which I think is really, really important for everyone, not just AI/LLM companies or developers, is that it is legal to buy printed books and digitize them into a central library with indexed metadata. Anthropic has to go to trial on the pirated books they just downloaded from the internet, but has fully won the portion of the case about the physical books they bought and digitized.
I will admit this is not a simple case. That being said, if you’ve lived in the US (and are aware of local mores), but you’re not American. you will have a different perspective on the US judicial system.
How is right to learn even relevant here? An LLM by definition cannot learn.
Where did I say analyzing a text should be restricted?
How is right to learn even relevant here? An LLM by definition cannot learn.
I literally quoted a relevant part of the judge’s decision:
But Authors cannot rightly exclude anyone from using their works for training or learning as such.
I am not a lawyer. I am talking about reality.
What does an LLM application (or training processes associated with an LLM application) have to do with the concept of learning? Where is the learning happening? Who is doing the learning?
Who is stopping the individuals at the LLM company from learning or analysing a given book?
From my experience living in the US, this is pretty standard American-style corruption. Lots of pomp and bombast and roleplay of sorts, but the outcome is no different from any other country that is in deep need of judicial and anti-corruotion reform.
What does an LLM application (or training processes associated with an LLM application) have to do with the concept of learning?
No, you’re framing the issue incorrectly.
The law concerns itself with copying. When humans learn, they inevitably copy things. They may memorize portions of copyrighted material, and then retrieve those memories in doing something new with them, or just by recreating it.
If the argument is that the mere act of copying for training an LLM is illegal copying, then what would we say about the use of copyrighted text for teaching children? They will memorize portions of what they read. They will later write some of them down. And if there is a person who memorizes an entire poem (or song) and then writes it down for someone else, that’s actually a copyright violation. But if they memorize that poem or song and reuse it in creating something new and different, but with links and connections to that previous copyrighted work, then that kind of copying and processing is generally allowed.
The judge here is analyzing what exact types of copying are permitted under the law, and for that, the copyright holders’ argument would sweep too broadly and prohibit all sorts of methods that humans use to learn.
Well, I’m talking about the reality of the law. The judge equated training with learning and stated that there is nothing in copyright that can prohibit it. Go ahead and read the judge’s ruling, it’s on display at the article linked. His conclusions start on page 9.
People. ML AI’s are not a human. It’s machine. Why do you want to give it human rights?
Do you think AIs spontaneously generate? They are a tool that people use. I don’t want to give the AIs rights, it’s about the people who build and use them.
Sounds like natural personhood for AI is coming
“No officer, you can’t shoot me. I have a LLM in my pocket. Without me, it’ll stop learning”
The order seems to say that the trained LLM and the commercial Claude product are not linked, which supports the decision. But I’m not sure how he came to that conclusion. I’m going to have to read the full order when I have time.
This might be appealed, but I doubt it’ll be taken up by SCOTUS until there are conflicting federal court rulings.
If you are struggling for time, just put the opinion into chat GPT and ask for a summary. it will save you tonnes of time.
