zlacker

>>moose4+(OP)
Broadly summarizing.

This is OK and fair use: Training LLMs on copyrighted work, since it's transformative.

This is not OK and not fair use: pirating data, or creating a big repository of pirated data that isn't necessarily for AI training.

Overall seems like a pretty reasonable ruling?

>>3PS+V1
It’s similar to the Google Books ruling, which Google lost. Anthropic also lost. TechCrunch and others are very aspirational here.

>>doctor+n8
Do you mean Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc.? Google won that case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,....

Maybe there's another big Google Books lawsuit that Google ultimately lost, but I don't know which one you mean in that case.

>>philip+Jl
see, but if you ask a copyright attorney: Google lost. This is what I mean by aspirational. They won something, in very similar circumstances to Anthropic, "fair use," but everything else that made what they were doing a practical reality instead of purely theoretical required negotiation with Authors Guild, and indeed, they are not doing what they wanted to do, right? Anthropic has to go to trial still, they had to pirate the books to train, and they will not win on their right to commercialize the results of training, because neither did Google, so what good is the Fair Use ruling, besides allowing OpenAI v. NYTimes to proceed a little longer?