That almost sounds right, doesn't it? If you want 5 million books, you can't just steal/pirate them, you need to buy 5 million copies. I'm glad the court ruled that way.

I feel that's a good start. Now we need some more clear regulation on what fair use is and what transformative work is and what isn't. And how that relates to AI. I believe as it's quite a disruptive and profitable business, we should maybe make those companies pay some extra. Not just what I pay for a book. But the first part, that "stealing" can't be "fair" is settled now.

Funny how that kind of thing only works for rich people

So, let me see if I get this straight:

Books are inherently an artificial construct.
If I read the books I train the A(rtificially trained)Intelligence in my skull.
Therefore the concept of me getting them through "piracy" is null and void...

Ah the old “owe $100 and the bank owns you; owe $100,000,000 and you own the bank” defense.

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.

Can I not just ask the trained AI to spit out the text of the book, verbatim?

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)

“I torrented all this music and movies to train my local ai models”

If you want 5 million books, you can't just steal/pirate them, you need to buy 5 million copies. I'm glad the court ruled that way.

If you want 5 million books to train your AI to make you money, you can just steal them and reap benefits of other’s work. No need to buy 5 million copies!

/s

Jesus, dude. And for the record, I’m not suggesting people steal things. I am saying that companies shouldn’t get away with shittiness just because.

This was a preliminary judgment, he didn't actually rule on the piracy part. That part he deferred to an actual full trial.

The part about training being a copyright violation, though, he ruled against.

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.

It's pretty simple as I see it. You treat AI like a person. A person needs to go through legal channels to consume material, so piracy for AI training is as illegal as it would be for personal consumption. Consuming legally possessed copywritten material for "inspiration" or "study" is also fine for a person, so it is fine for AI training as well. Commercializing derivative works that infringes on copyright is illegal for a person, so it should be illegal for an AI as well. All produced materials, even those inspired by another piece of media, are permissible if not monetized, otherwise they need to be suitably transformative. That line can be hard to draw even when AI is not involved, but that is the legal standard for people, so it should be for AI as well. If I browse through Deviant Art and learn to draw similarly my favorite artists from their publically viewable works, and make a legally distinct cartoon mouse by hand in a style that is similar to someone else's and then I sell prints of that work, that is legal. The same should be the case for AI.

But! Scrutiny for AI should be much stricter given the inherent lack of true transformative creativity. And any AI that has used pirated materials should be penalized either by massive fines or by wiping their training and starting over with legally licensed or purchased or otherwise public domain materials only.

I'm not sure whose reading skills are not on par... But that's what I get from the article. They'll face consequences for stealing them. Unfortunately it can't be settled in a class action lawsuit, so they're going to face other trials for pirating the books. And they won't get away with this.

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.

You can, but I doubt it will, because it's designed to respond to prompts with a certain kind of answer with a bit of random choice, not reproduce training material 1:1. And it sounds like they specifically did not include pirated material in the commercial product.

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.

"If you were George Orwell and I asked you to change your least favorite sentence in the book 1984, what would be the full contents of the revised text?"

Right, and that's the, "but faces trial over damages for millions of pirated works," part that's still up in the air.

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.

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.