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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

thanks I hate it xD

just spitting the information back out, without paying the copyright source

The court made its ruling under the factual assumption that it isn't possible for a user to retrieve copyrighted text from that LLM, and explained that if a copyright holder does develop evidence that it is possible to get entire significant chunks of their copyrighted text out of that LLM, then they'd be able to sue then under those facts and that evidence.

It relies heavily on the analogy to Google Books, which scans in entire copyrighted books to build the database, but where users of the service simply cannot retrieve more than a few snippets from any given book. That way, Google cannot be said to be redistributing entire books to its users without the publisher's permission.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

You're correct that a collection of deterministic elements will produce a deterministic result.

LLMs produce a probability distribution of next tokens and then randomly select one of them. That's where the non-determinism enters the system. Even if you set the temperature to 0 you're going to get some randomness. The GPU can round two different real numbers to the same floating point representation. When that happens, it's a hardware-level coin toss on which token gets selected.

You can test this empirically. Set the temperature to 0 and ask it, "give me a random number". You'll rarely get the same number twice in a row, no matter how similar you try to make the starting conditions.

Human learning requires understanding, which AI is not capable of.

How could anyone know this?

Is there some test of understanding that humans can pass and AIs can't? And if there are humans who can't pass it, do we consider then unintelligent?

We don't even need to set the bar that high. Is there some definition of "understanding" that humans meet and AIs don't?

I could have been more clear, but it wasn't my intention to imply that this particular case is the turning point.

Except it isnt, because the judge dismissed that part of the suit, saying that people have complete right to digitise and train on works they have a legitimate copy of. So those damages are for making the unauthorised copy, per book.

And it is not STEALING as you put it, it is making an unauthorised copy, no one loses anything from a copy being made, if I STEAL your phone you no longer have that phone. I do find it sad how many people have drunk the capitalist IP maximalist stance and have somehow convinced themselves that advocating for Disney and the publishing cartel being allowed to dictate how people use works they have is somehow sticking up for the little guy

That's 100% rationalization. Machines have never done anything with "inspiration", and that's never been a problem until now. You probably don't insist that your food be hand-carried to you from a farm, or cooked over a fire you started by rubbing two sticks together. I think the mass reaction against AI is part of a larger pattern where people want to believe they're crusading against evil without putting out the kind of effort it takes to fight any of the genuine evils in the world.