zlacker

From my understanding:

> pirating the books for their digital library is not fair use.

"Pirating" is a fuzzy word and has no real meaning. Specifically, I think this is the cruz:

> without adding new copies, creating new works, or redistributing existing copies

Essentially: downloading is fine, sharing/uploading up is not. Which makes sense. The assertion here is that Anthropic (from this line) did not distribute the files they downloaded.

>>jasonl+(OP)
Downloading and using pirated software in a company is fine then as long as it is not shared outside? If what you describe is legal it makes no sense to pay for software.

>>codedo+g
> Downloading a document is fine as long as it is not shared outside?

I've fixed your question so that it accurately represents what I said and doesn't put words in my mouth.

If I click on a link and download a document, is that illegal?

I do not know if the person has the right to distribute it or not. IANAL, but when people were getting sued by the RIAA years back, it was never about downloading, but also distribution.

As I said, IANAL, but feel free to correct me, but my understanding is that downloading a document from the internet is not illegal.

>>jasonl+(OP)
The legal context here is that "format shifting" has not previously been held to be sufficient for fair use on its own, and downloading for personal use has also been considered infringing. Just look at the numerous media industry lawsuits against individuals that only mention downloading, not sharing for examples.

It's a bit surprising that you can suddenly download copyrighted materials for personal use and and it's kosher as long as you don't share them with others.

>>jasonl+(OP)
Given that downloading requires you to copy the data to download it, I'd think it would fall under "adding new copies".

>>jasonl+P2
> it was never about downloading, but also distribution.

Did you mean to write "but about distribution" here?

>>codedo+g
sci-hub suddenly becomes legal if all researchers adhere to one big company, apparently.

After all, illegally downloading research papers in order to write new ones is highly transformative.

>>Captai+E9
Yes, thank you for catching that. Unfortunately, I cannot edit it now.

>>AlotOf+76
> the numerous media industry lawsuits against individuals that only mention downloading,

I never saw any of these. All the cases I saw were related to people using torrents or other P2P software (which aren't just downloading). These might exist, but I haven't seen them.

> It's a bit surprising that you can suddenly download copyrighted materials for personal use and it's kosher as long as you don't share them with others.

Every click on a link is a risk of downloading copyrighted material you don't have the rights to.

Searching the internet, it appears that it's a civil infraction, but it's also confused with the notion that "piracy" is illegal, a term that's used for many different purposes. I see "It is illegal to download any music or movies that are copyrighted." under legal advice, which I know as a statement is not true.

Hence my confusion.

I should note: I'm not arguing from the perspective of whether it's morally or ethically right. Only that even in the context of this thread, things are phrased that aren't clear.

>>eikenb+j6
> All Anthropic did was replace the print copies it had purchased ... with more convenient space-saving and searchable digital copies for its central library — without adding new copies..."

That suggests otherwise.

>>jasonl+Pt
I just checked first individual suit I could find, which was BMG v. Gonzalez. She used P2P, but the case was specifically about her downloading, not redistributing.

>>AlotOf+qw
Most P2P tools work in a way where you cannot download without simultaneously uploading.

>>travoc+tK
Which is beside the point if the plaintiffs don't claim it as an issue. Take the anthropic opinion in the article, where the judge explicitly calls out that there's an unresolved question of whether the model outputs might be infringing that can't be ruled on because the plaintiffs only talk about the inputs.

Gonzalez is a ruling about downloading even though there was also distribution.

>>jasonl+5u
They are using legal speak where I'm just talking making copies. The fact that they talk about how making a copy "without adding new copies" only makes sense in this light.