Meta Wins Blockbuster AI Copyright Case—but There’s a Catch
Meta Wins Blockbuster AI Copyright Case—but There’s a Catch
www.wired.com
Meta Wins Blockbuster AI Copyright Case—but There’s a Catch
21 comments
-
-
Great. Another fucking idiot judge that doesn't understand technology.
-
Pretty much true for every lawyer legislating the industry.
-
Maybe he doesn't. Someone like Alsup is an exception. Doesn't seem to make much of a difference in the end.
-
-
What law? What courts? All we have now are fascist rubber stamps.
Capitalism without socialism brings fascism. Here you are.
-
Huh? The court affirmed that there are limits to private property. Not sure how to interpret that comment.
-
It's more a general overall statement. It means that making the dollar the sole king means you ignore the needs of the people and end up with a fascist state
Similarly if all that is done is focus on people and not the economy, well end up in an authoritarian state
That's all. No deep legalese or philosophy.
-
-
-
I suppose I will continue to repost this, which summarizes the problem well, I think.
-
The answer is yes. There is a lot of disinformation being spread, maybe to influence juries, or maybe to undermine the already beleaguered rule of law in the US. The truth is that there is very little unexpected about these judgments. That's how fair use works.
-
21 comments
If AI training is inherently "transformative" then musicians should be able to perform or sample copyrighted music without paying royalties because its the same fucking shit.
Yeah. The US Supreme Court made a serious mistake when it killed hip hop.
Still, samples are copies, even if just copies of a short part of the original. It's not the same.
"Samples" of text taken from copyrighted works definitely show up in LLM models and are a large part of why these lawsuits are occurring
Honestly, yeah. Cover bands should be a thing. And samples in a rap song of other songs completely transformative.
If anything, I'd argue that we are too uptight about music copyrights and not uptight enough about AI copyrights.
But it's not the same, you don't understand how LLM training works. The original piece of work is not retained at all, the training data is used to tune pre existing numbers, those numbers change slightly as training goes on.
At no point in time is anything resembling the training data ever present in the 1's and 0's of the model.
You are wrong, bring on the downvotes uninformed haters.
FYI I also agree sampling music should be fine for artists
Yes, weights for individual words/phrases/token which, given a particular prompt/keyword, which might reproduce the original training data almost in it's entirety given similar set of prompt or set of keywords. Hence why it is so obvious when these models have been trained on copyrighted material.
Similarly, I don't digitally store music in my head verbatim, I store some fuzzy version that i can still reproduce fairly closely when prompted, and still get sued if I'm charging money for performing or recording it, because the "weightings" in my neurons are just an implementation detail of how my brain works and not some active/purposeful attempt to transform the music in any appreciable way.
I agree with you, but I also would like to make a point.
We've seen trained models produce exact text from sections in articles and draw anti-piracy watermarks over images.
Just because it's turning the content into associations doesn't mean it can't, in some circumstances, reproduce exactly what it was trained on. It's not the intent, but it does happen.
Midjourney drawing recognisable characters is far more problematic from the copyright and trademark side, but honestly, nothing is stopping you from doing that in Photoshop.
Millions of unlicensed products are all over ebay, temu and etsy and we didn't even need AI to make them.