zlacker

>>moose4+(OP)
One aspect of this ruling [1] that I find concerning: on pages 7 and 11-12, it concedes that the LLM does substantially "memorize" copyrighted works, but rules that this doesn't violate the author's copyright because Anthropic has server-side filtering to avoid reproducing memorized text. (Alsup compares this to Google Books, which has server-side searchable full-text copies of copyrighted books, but only allows users to access snippets in a non-infringing manner.)

Does this imply that distributing open-weights models such as Llama is copyright infringement, since users can trivially run the model without output filtering to extract the memorized text?

[1]: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.43...

>>Nobody+fc
You can use the copyrighted text for personal purposes.

>>deadba+Gc
You can also, in the US, use it for any purposes which fall within the domain of "fair use", which while now also incorporated in the copyright statute, was first identified as an application of the first amendment and, as such, a constitutional limit on what Congress even had the power to prohibit with copyright law (the odd parameters of the statutory exception are largely because it attempted to codify the existing Constitutional case law.)

Purposes which are fair use are very often not at all personal.

(Also, "personal use" that involves copying, creating a derivative work, or using any of the other exclusive rights of a copyright holder without a license or falling into either fair use or another explicit copyright exception are not, generally, allowed, they are just hard to detect and unlikely to be worth the copyright holder's time to litigate even if they somehow were detected.)