←back to thread

Anthropic judge rejects $1.5B AI copyright settlement

(news.bloomberglaw.com)
290 points nobody9999 | 4 comments | 09 Sep 25 08:46 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
firesteelrain ◴[09 Sep 25 19:14 UTC] No.45187248[source]▶
How do any of these AI companies protect authors by users uploading full PDF or even plaintext of anything? Aren’t the same piracy concerns real even if they train on what users are providing ?
replies(3): >>45187537 #>>45188567 #>>45188649 #
1. robryan ◴[09 Sep 25 20:35 UTC] No.45188567[source]▶
Training aside, an llm reading a pdf as part of a prompt feels similar to say Dropbox storing a pdf for you.
replies(2): >>45189656 #>>45200370 #
2. terminalshort ◴[09 Sep 25 21:44 UTC] No.45189656[source]▶
It's not similar at all because you can't get the book back out of the LLM like you can out of Dropbox. Copyright law is concerned with outputs, not with inputs. If you could make a machine that could create full exact copies of books without ever training on or copying those books, that would still be infringement.
replies(1): >>45191788 #
3. shkkmo ◴[10 Sep 25 01:05 UTC] No.45191788[source]▶
> make a machine that could create full exact copies of books without ever training on or copying those books, that would still be infringement.

No it wouldn't. Making the machine is not making a copy of the book. Using the machine to make a copy of the book would be infringment because...you would be making a copy of the book.

4. pessimizer ◴[10 Sep 25 16:45 UTC] No.45200370[source]▶
I bet you could get a court to say it was legally identical.

I think the Aereo case, and Scalia's dissent, are super relevant here. It's when the court decided to go with vibes, instead of facts. The inevitable result of that (which Scalia didn't predict) was selective enforcement.

edit: so what I really mean is that I bet you could get a court to say whatever you wanted about it if you were far wealthier and more influential than your opponents.