TWeaK

Sorry for the double reply, but I did also expand further upon (3) and (4), and other aspects, in my latest reply to /u/General_Effort@lemmy.world (link to your instance's version): https://midwest.social/comment/6225045

(1)to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords

The works are copied in their entirey and reproduced in the training database. AI businesses do not deny this is copying, but instead claim it is research and thus has a fair use exemption.

I argue it is not research, but product development - and furthermore, unlike traditional R&D, it is not some prototype that is different and separate from the commercial product. The prototype is the commercial product.

(2)to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work

AI can and has reproduced significant portions of copyrighted work, even in spite of the fact that the finished product allegedly does not include the work in its database (it just read the training database).

Furthermore, even if a human genuinely and honestly believes they're writing something original, that does not matter when they reproduce work that they have read before. What determines copyright infringement is the similarity of the two works.

If you read through the court filings against OpenAI and Stability AI, much of the argument is based around trying to make a claim under case 1.

The position that I take is that the arguments made against OpenAI and Stability AI in court are not complete. They're not quite good enough. However, that doesn't mean there isn't a valid argument that is good enough. I just hope we don't get a ruling in favour of AI businesses simply because the people challenging them didn't employ the right ammunition.

With regards to Case 2, I refer back to my comment about the similarity of the work. The argument isn't that the LLM itself is an infringement of copyright, but that the LLM, as designed by the business, infringes copyright in the same way a human would.

I definitely agree it is all extremely unclear. However, I maintain that the textual definition of the law absolutely still encompasses the feeling that peoples' work is being ripped off for a commercial venture. Because it is so commercial, original authors are being harmed as they will not see any benefit from the commercial profits.

I would also like to point you to my other comment, which I put a lot of time into and where I expanded on many other points (link to your instance's version): https://lemmy.world/comment/6706240

A commercial purpose might not rule out of a finding of fair use.

ARRRRG I spent so long reviewing this comment, over and over and over again, and still there were words wrong. I'm not editing it though, I want the comment to stay clean.

Such as means that these are examples. This is not a complete list.

AI developers have explicitly envoked the research exemption. That is why I focused on that. I disagree that what they do is "research" for the reasons I gave previously. Bringing up the fact there are other exemptions is beside the point - they aren't claiming any other exemption!

All of these factors must be considered. It does not mean that other factors cannot be considered. These are not categories.

Sure, but I never said that commerciality was the only thing that should be considered. My claim here is simply that it is so overwhelmingly commercial in nature that it overrides anything else and thus they should not be awarded the privilege of an exemption.

A commercial purpose does not rule out a finding of fair use (and vice versa).

A commercial purpose might not rule out of a finding of fair use. That does not mean it cannot rule out such a finding. All factors must be considered, but any one factor can outweigh the others.

I never said it was an exclusive category, I just brought it up as the most significant factor - one which is not reasonably overruled by any of the others in this circumstance. In fact, every one of those arguably fails. To give detail:

1. The copying is done in a commercial nature. They sell AI services. It's offered very cheap right now - even for free for limited personal use - but eventually that will change as their demand for profit grows.
2. The nature of the copied work is varied and includes all kinds of work, commercial and non-commercial. The copying is pandemic.
3. The whole work has been copied into the training database. Significant portions of the work can and have been reproduced by the finished product, in spite of the finished product allegedly not containing the original work in its database. Furthermore, even if a human genuinely believes they aren't copying something they read before, that does not mean they are innocent of copyright infringement - it is the similarity of the two works that make the determining factor.
4. AI work is already flooding the market and pushing out original creators. Childrens' books is one area where this is happening extensively - not only does this make it harder for genuine authors to get a break in the market, but they're effectively training children to think AI work is normal. It's not hard to see us headed to a future where people think AI is "real" and original work is "fake", simply by volume.

I will admit, not all of those arguments are very strong (particularly 4.). However 1. is the strongest and I think overrides any argument the other way for any other.

I don’t think that Meta’s use can be classed as commercial. Presumably, they do hope that the research budget will pay off eventually.

Those two statements contradict one another. Of course they want it to be commercial eventually - or, rather, they want to eventually turn a profit. Hell, AI is already being used in a commercial manner: if you want to make significant or non-personal use of AI systems currently on the market, you have to pay for it.

Eventually, fair use derives from the constitution.

Setting aside the fact that AI extends far beyond the borders of the US and its constitution, fair use and copyright are derived from copyright law, which is written by Congress. The Constitution grants Congress the right to write such laws, but no one is "invoking the Constitution" when they enforce copyright or claim fair use. The Constitution gives permission, but the law forms the definition.

AI is not simply a "useful Art". It is a commercial venture that exploits original work without duly compensating the authors of said work. Congress has a greater duty to protect those original authors than it does a business that seeks to exploit their work. I say this as someone who has never really made much of anything original myself. I play a bit of music, but don't compose and just do covers. I probably (lol limewire definitely) infringe on copyright - but I do so exclusively in a non-commercial manner.

Blurting out "far-right" is borderline a personal insult - one which is laughably far from the mark when addressed towards me - and points to you clutching at straws to cling to a frivilous argument.

I now feel the need to ask, why do you so passionately defend AI businesses here? Why do you support them?

Are you that infatuated with the novelty of their product that you have let go of objectivity?

I also have to emphasise again that I'm a little disgusted that you made this political. You've tried to build an argument that "it is a Constitutional right" to infringe copyright in order to have AI tools, and you're implying that anyone who opposes that idea is some kind of far-right nutjob. I hadn't even heard of Ayn Rand before you mentioned her, but have you actually read her work, or did you just watch the Atlas Shrugged movie and form your opinions from internet memes?

I'd actually probably agree with you about AI - if it was non-commercial in nature and truly for the benefit of the people. As it is, I think you are blinded by the sheen of a new toy, without realising it's coated in lead paint.

The main argument for this being fair use is both that a single work of copyright bears little to no relationship to the end product

It bears relationship to the end product when the end product reproduces the original work.

that the model itself does not effect the market for - or value of - the copyrighted work

Given that AI is poised to take over the position of original writers and flood the market with fake work, copying not only their words but their very style, I'd argue it does affect the value of existing work. With children's books already being heavily written by AI, it seems quite likely that we will before too long get to the point where people expect things to be written by AI, thus devaluing true creative and original work.

....... Have you ever played Garry's Mod?

Edit: Lol, I wrote that before I looked it up: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1384628469

They also didn’t send a cease and desist but reached out to him directly and asked him to take it down.

You're right, and I should have double checked and worded it better. However, for all intents and purposes, politely asking him to take it down is the same as a cease and desist.

they are worried about having their IP associated with proprietary Nintendo libraries.

That is indeed apparent, however I still don't get it. What do they hope to gain from currying favour from Nintendo? They don't sell Nintendo games on Steam, and doing so is a pipe dream (lol sleepy Mario).

I'm pretty confident if someone combined Valve's IP with anyone else's this would not have happened.

TBH I see this more as Valve seeing that with a project this publicly known, if they don't defend their IP here they'll lose any future copyright claims and want to prevent it.

That would only apply to trademarks. Copyright has no requirement to sue to maintain the rights, but registered trademarks do.

I wonder if there was some sort of settlement between Valve and Nintendo, after Dolphin was removed from the Steam store, which requires them to support Nintendo. Even then, this is separate to the Steam store.

It does give them brownie points with Nintendo though, I guess.

Yeah what I don't understand is why Valve are defending Nintendo's IP here. They didn't send a cease and desist because it was Portal, they sent it because it uses Nintendo's libraries.

Makes me wonder if there was some kind of legal settlement after the whole Dolphin emulator on Steam thing.

Yeah sure, but why is Valve defending Nintendo's IP? That's my issue here.

My answer to both your comments is that just because a lot of people get away with breaking the law and abusing peoples' rights doesn't mean it hasn't happened and they can't or shouldn't be held to account.