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
Copyright was codified in an age where plagiarism was time consuming. Even replacing words with synonyms on a mass scale was technically infeasible.

The goal of copyright is to make sure people can get fair compensation for the amount of work they put in. LLMs automate plagiarism on a previously unfathomable scale.

If humans spend a trillion hours writing books, articles, blog posts and code, then somebody (a small group of people) comes and spends a million hours building a machine that ingests all the previous work and produces output based on it, who should get the reward for the work put in?

The original authors together spent a million times more effort (normalized for skill) and should therefore should get a million times bigger reward than those who build the machine.

In other words, if the small group sells access to the product of the combined effort, they only deserve a millionth of the income.

---

If "AI" is as transformative as they claim, they will have no trouble making so much money they they can fairly compensate the original authors while still earning a decent profit. But if it's not, then it's just an overpriced plagiarism automator and their reluctance to acknowledge they are making money on top of everyone else's work is indicative.

>>martin+yJ
Copyright's goal, at least under Constitution under which this court is ruling is to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts" not to ensure that authors get paid for anything that strikes their whim.

LLMs are models of languages, which are models of reality. If anyone deserves compensation, it's humanity as a whole, for example by nationalizing, or whatever the global equivalent is, LLMs.

Approximately none of the value of LLMs, for any user, is in recreating the text written by an author. Authors have only ever been entitled to (limited) ownership their expression, copyright has never given them ownership of facts.