Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) company Anthropic has claimed to a US court that using copyrighted content in large language model (LLM) training data counts as “fair use”, however.

Under US law, “fair use” permits the limited use of copyrighted material without permission, for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research.

In October 2023, a host of music publishers including Concord, Universal Music Group and ABKCO initiated legal action against the Amazon- and Google-backed generative AI firm Anthropic, demanding potentially millions in damages for the allegedly “systematic and widespread infringement of their copyrighted song lyrics”.

  • helenslunch@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    I love seeing Lemmy users trip over themselves to declare that copyrights don’t or shouldn’t exist when it comes to pirating, right up until it comes to AI. Then Copyrights are enshrined by The Constitution and all the corporations NEED to pay for them, even when they’re not actually copying anything.

    • zaphod@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      9 months ago

      You do realize that there may in fact be different, distinct groups of Lemmy users with differing, potentially non-overlapping beliefs, yeah?

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        Sure but Lemmy also operates as a sort of hivemind. This is the top-voted post in the last 24 hours and piracy content usually makes up at least 25% of content here.

        • zaphod@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          9 months ago

          Oh, well, you’ve clearly done the kind of deep and thoughtful analysis that would allow you to determine the general opinions of all Lemmy users. My mistake. Carry on.

    • SuiXi3D@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      Using copyrighted material for something you aren’t gonna make any money off of? Cool, go hog wild. If you’re gonna use some music or art that you didn’t make in something that will make you money, the folks that made whatever you used should get a cut. Not the whole cut, but a cut.

      • Moira_Mayhem@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        If an artist falls in love with drawing and learns to draw from Jack Kirby’s work and at the beginning even imitates his style, does he owe Jack Kirby royalties for every drawing he does as he ‘learned’ on Jack’s copyrighted art?

        • SuiXi3D@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          I think in that case, no. ‘Style’ is one thing, directly using someone’s art in your own work is something else entirely. However, we’re talking about a person here, not a program developed by a company for the express purpose of making as much money as possible in the shortest amount of time. Until AI can truly demonstrate that it is truly thinking and not simply executing commands given, I don’t think the lines are blurred nearly enough to suggest that someone learning to paint and an AI trained on hundreds of thousands of pieces of art for the purpose of making money for the company that built it are remotely the same.

    • Sneezycat@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      And corporations want people to pay for it but they don’t want to pay for it themselves. It’s almost as if no one likes copyright, but it benefits some ppl more than others.

    • Pigeon@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      You do realize that lemmy contains very many users, many of whom disagree on any number of things. You are randomly assigning the opinions of lemmy’s pirate users to a random commenter without evidence that they actually hold those opinions, because it’d be convenient for you if they’re contradicting themself in any way (though the degree to which that would be a contradiction is also arguable). It’s just a way of constructing a strawman instead of engaging with your interlocutor’s actual words.

      Also, part of the problem is that these LLMs very often do directly copy and spit out articles and random forum posts and etc word-for-word verbatim, or it’ll do something that’s the equivalent of a plagiarist who swaps a few words around in a sad attempt to not get caught. It becomes especially likely depending on how specific the search is, like if you look for a niche topic hardly anyone has written extensively on or for the solution to an esoteric problem that maybe just one person on a forum somewhere found an answer to. It also typically does not even give credit or link to its sources.

      Plus, copyright law, if it exists, must apply to everyone, including major coporations. That’s a separate issue than whether or not copyright law needs reform (it obviously does). If you wanna abolish copyright, fine, ok, get it abolished through the government. But while copyright law is still the law, I’m not ozk with giving magacorps a pass to break it legally, especially when they’re more than happy to sue random, harmless individuals for violating their own copyrights. They want the law not to apply to them because they’re rich.

      The argument they’re making is just ridiculous on its face when you compare it to other crimes. If AI should be allowed to violate copyright because otherwise it can’t exist as it is, then anyone should be able to violate copyright because otherwise their cool projects won’t be able to exist. And I should be able to rob a bank because otherwise I won’t have all that money. You should be able to commit murder because otherwise your annoying coworker will keep bugging you. She should be able to walk out of a store with an iPhone without paying for it because otherwise she won’t have an iPhone. Etc. It’s an argument that says the criminal’s motivations are legal justification for the crime. “You should let me legally do the thing because otherwise I can’t do the thing” is just not a convincing argument in my book.

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        You do realize that lemmy contains very many users

        Already addressed in another comment.

        part of the problem is that these LLMs very often do directly copy and spit out articles and random forum posts and etc word-for-word verbatim

        It’s a problem they’ve acknowledged and are actively working on.

        Plus, copyright law, if it exists, must apply to everyone, including major coporations.

        Well many people here would disagree. That was the entire point of my comment.