zlacker

>>ssgodd+(OP)
For me it's quite obvious that if you make a profit from an engine that has as an input copyrighted material, then you owe something to the owner of this copyrighted content. We have seen this same problem with artists claiming stable diffusion engines were using their art.

>>lp4vn+e4
If you study copyrighted material for four years at a university and then go on to earn money based on your education, do you owe something to the authors of your text books?

I'm not sure how we should treat LLMs with respect to publicly accessible but copyrighted material, but it seems clear to me that "profiting" from copyrighted material isn't a sufficient criteria to cause me to "owe something to the owner".

>>gwrigh+m8
The reproduction of that material in an educational setting is protected by Fair Use.

>>ttypri+6g
I don't think that is relevant to my comment. Whether the material is purchased, borrowed from a library, or legally reproduced under "fair use", I'm still asserting that I don't "owe" the creators any of my profit that I earn from taking advantage of what I learned.

>>gwrigh+5t
The parent comment asks whether an “engine” trained on copyrighted data is entitled to decide profit. Your comment is about a human receiving knowledge that facilitates profit. Of course, these are legally independent scenarios.

Take a college student who scans all her textbooks, relying on fair use. If she is the only user, is she obligated to pay a premium for mining?

What about the scenario in which she sells that engine to other book owners? What if they only owned the book a short time in school?