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.

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.

Yeah, you can certainly get it to reproduce some pieces (or fragments) of work exactly but definitely not everything. Even a frontier LLM's weights are far too small to fully memorize most of their training data.

stupid inodes preventing me from burning though my drive life

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.

You're getting douchevoted because on lemmy any AI-related comment that isn't negative enough about AI is the Devil's Work.

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

This ruling stated that corporations are not allowed to pirate books to use them in training. Please read the headlines more carefully, and read the article.

This ruling stated that corporations are not allowed to pirate books to use them in training. Please read the headlines more carefully, and read the article.

This ruling stated that corporations are not allowed to pirate books to use them in training. Please read the headlines more carefully, and read the article.

This ruling stated that corporations are not allowed to pirate books to use them in training. Please read the headlines more carefully, and read the article.

What a bad judge.

This is another indication of how Copyright laws are bad. The whole premise of copyright has been obsolete since the proliferation of the internet.

thank you Captain Funsucker!

Or, If a legal copy of the book is owned then it can be used for AI training.

The court is saying that no special AI book license is needed.

This judgment is implying that meta broke the law.

But, corporations are allowed to buy books normally and use them in training.

What a bad judge.

Why ? Basically he simply stated that you can use whatever material you want to train your model as long as you ask the permission to use it (and presumably pay for it) to the author (or copytight holder)

"No officer, you can't shoot me. I have a LLM in my pocket. Without me, it'll stop learning"

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.

Even if the AI could spit it out verbatim, all the major labs already have IP checkers on their text models that block it doing so as fair use for training (what was decided here) does not mean you are free to reproduce.

Like, if you want to be an artist and trace Mario in class as you learn, that's fair use.

If once you are working as an artist someone says "draw me a sexy image of Mario in a calendar shoot" you'd be violating Nintendo's IP rights and liable for infringement.