• Alphane Moon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    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.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      68
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      9 days ago

      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.

      • AbidanYre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        44
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        9 days ago

        You’re right. When you’re doing it for commercial gain, it’s not fair use anymore. It’s really not that complicated.

        • tabular@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          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)

      • Null User Object@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        9 days ago

        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.

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      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.

      • Tagger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 days ago

        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.