←back to thread

989 points acomjean | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.005s | source
Show context
aeon_ai ◴[] No.45143392[source]
To be very clear on this point - this is not related to model training.

It’s important in the fair use assessment to understand that the training itself is fair use, but the pirating of the books is the issue at hand here, and is what Anthropic “whoopsied” into in acquiring the training data.

Buying used copies of books, scanning them, and training on it is fine.

Rainbows End was prescient in many ways.

replies(36): >>45143460 #>>45143461 #>>45143507 #>>45143513 #>>45143567 #>>45143731 #>>45143840 #>>45143861 #>>45144037 #>>45144244 #>>45144321 #>>45144837 #>>45144843 #>>45144845 #>>45144903 #>>45144951 #>>45145884 #>>45145907 #>>45146038 #>>45146135 #>>45146167 #>>45146218 #>>45146268 #>>45146425 #>>45146773 #>>45146935 #>>45147139 #>>45147257 #>>45147558 #>>45147682 #>>45148227 #>>45150324 #>>45150567 #>>45151562 #>>45151934 #>>45153210 #
rchaud ◴[] No.45144837[source]
> Buying used copies of books, scanning them, and training on it is fine.

But nobody was ever going to that, not when there are billions in VC dollars at stake for whoever moves fastest. Everybody will simply risk the fine, which tends to not be anywhere close to enough to have a deterrent effect in the future.

That is like saying Uber would have not had any problems if they just entered into a licensing contract with taxi medallion holders. It was faster to just put unlicensed taxis on the streets and use investor money to pay fines and lobby for favorable legislation. In the same way, it was faster for Anthropic to load up their models with un-DRM'd PDFs and ePUBs from wherever instead of licensing them publisher by publisher.

replies(15): >>45144965 #>>45145196 #>>45145216 #>>45145270 #>>45145297 #>>45145300 #>>45145388 #>>45146392 #>>45146407 #>>45146846 #>>45147108 #>>45147461 #>>45148242 #>>45152291 #>>45152841 #
jayd16 ◴[] No.45145297[source]
> But nobody was ever going to that

Didn't Google have a long standing project to do just that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Books

replies(3): >>45146230 #>>45147075 #>>45147411 #
1. godelski ◴[] No.45147411[source]
From TFA

  The Google Books project also faced a copyright lawsuit, which was eventually decided in favor of Google.

  After contacting major publishers about possibly licensing their books, [former head of the Google Books project] bought physical books in bulk from distributors and retailers, according to court documents. He then hired outside organizations to dissemble the books, scan them and create digital copies that could be used to train the company’s AI. technologies.

  Judge Alsup ruled that this approach was fair use under the law. But he also found the company’s previous approach — downloading and storing books from shadow libraries like Library Genesis and Pirate Library Mirror — was illegal.
replies(3): >>45151241 #>>45151280 #>>45155759 #
2. imwm ◴[] No.45151241[source]
Disassemble*
3. rchaud ◴[] No.45151280[source]
That wasn't done as a play for venture capital. The Google Books project began before eBooks existed; in the 2000s, they spent money on all kinds of projects that had no real strategy for monetization. I remember Google Books being a valuable resource as it digitized books that were out of print. Back when they actually cared about making information available widely.
4. Thorrez ◴[] No.45155759[source]
Yeah. Weird that rchaud said "But nobody was ever going to that" when the article talks about someone doing it.