upvote

points

by dgellow4 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby SR2Z3 hours ago|
next
[-]
> on the other hand the complete dismissal of copyright by AI labs

Courts keep ruling over and over that an LLM trained on copyrighted works qualifies as a transformative work and is therefore fair use. They don't have to dismiss copyright law, this has always been allowed.

The only thing they get in trouble for is pirating the works to get their hands on them.

reply
upvoteby dijksterhuis18 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> Courts keep ruling over and over that an LLM trained on copyrighted works qualifies as a transformative work and is therefore fair use. They don't have to dismiss copyright law, this has always been allowed.

*USA only.

the UK has fair dealing, which is more restrictive

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/exceptions-to-copyright#fair-dea...

https://www.britishcopyright.org/wp-content/uploads/BCC-Fair...

reply
upvoteby Diogenesian3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
"Keep ruling over and over" is way too strong. There have maybe been two rulings, nothing nationally binding, and most of the litigation is still ongoing. In particular, last I checked OpenAI and Microsoft are still badly threatened by the NYT lawsuit: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-yor... https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/publishers-o...

This will have to wait for the Supreme Court. OpenAI and Microsoft 100% deserve to lose, even without OpenAI allegedly hiding evidence.

reply
upvoteby asadotzler1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Not to mention the cases where the AI labs would have lost in court so bailed and settled for billions. Just this week, Anthropic agreed to pay $1.5B in a settlement to avoid losing a pretty cut and dry case.
reply
upvoteby Diogenesian1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
To be clear that was one of the few resolved cases where the judge agreed training was fair use. But the piracy was enough of a distraction that I don't consider that a particularly useful precedent. I am much more interested in the NYT case, which quite clearly shows GPT was trained on NYT articles and can spit them out verbatim (and has since been validated by academic research; all the commercial models are capable of mass plagiarism).
reply
upvoteby xienze1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> Anthropic agreed to pay $1.5B in a settlement to avoid losing a pretty cut and dry case.

It takes two parties to agree to a settlement. That the other party agreed to a settlement instead of taking it to court implies this was not the slam dunk you may think it was.

reply
upvoteby robocat8 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
You're both reading tea leaves.

Settling just says that they expected the internal costs or risks to be more than 1.5 billion cashflow.

  In the $65B in Series H funding at $965B post-money valuation they said their run-rate revenue crossed $47B annualised.
With those numbers, there can be sound financial reasons for wanting to just get rid of the lawsuit.

Also if it ends up that other competitors also need to pay $1.5 billion, then maybe that does or doesn't have a competitive advantage.

Anthropic's business and legal strategies are not public. I would expect there to be multiple legs/reasons for settlement even for a decision below 1%. Trying to create a single narrative is what us spectators do.

reply
upvoteby Madmallard8 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Man that's depressing to read someone defending this
reply
upvoteby whywhywhywhy42 minutes ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I don't think anyone is really dismissing it, just pointing out the audacity of complaining about distillation after stealing so much themselves is comical.
reply
upvoteby mrtesthah3 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
The amount of original, copyrightable and trademarkable IP actually created by the AI labs themselves is dwarfed by their staggeringly vast infringement activities.
reply