"See your honour, I'm just training my AI with all these books, comics, movies, music, general software and games. Totally permissible. Go fine Lars retroactively for keeping interfering with our training".
this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2026
679 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
84143 readers
2457 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Arguing that training models isn't fair use us going to be a massive uphill battle, it's basically reading the book but with a computer. It's not actually a big deal to people, unless you hold the copyright to a ton of works and want to get a percentage of all the AI income these companies have made.
Torrenting the books is likely absolutely copyright infringement, but that has relatively low payout compared to the money these companies are getting for their models. The training being fair use means that rights holders can't try to take any money from the model's use. The statutory limits for infringement even at per work levels aren't significant compared to the legal cost of proving it happened.
There's an argument to be made that it is, in fact, not 'reading'. The training of the model could be considered a lossy compression of the data. And streaming movies in a lossy compression format is not fair use, is it?
It's not the storage of the information that matters as much as the presentation. Google's search index stores a huge amount of copyrighted material, even losslessly. But they only present small snippets at a time which is not considered copyright infringement. The question really is whether or not the information being presented by the models is in a format which is considered copyright infringement. So far, courts have not found that they are.
The model doesn't stream out anyone's content though. The article mentions that the plaintiffs have provided no examples of a prompt that creates anything substantial.
Streaming a lossy compression would generally be infringement, but there is definitely a point where it becomes not infringement if it's lossy enough.
What a model generally stores, is factual information that isn't copyright in the first place. It's storing word counts, sentence lengths, sentiment analysis, and so on.
Anthropic pirating books for their training corpus resulted in the biggest copyright settlement in history--well over a billion. That is still being quibbled over i believe, but they settled because they were likely to pay out more if the case went forward. So I'm not really sure where you're coming from that infringement via torrenting does not result in monstrously large liability.
The judge in that case ruled the training wasn't fair use for pirated books, which left them on the hook for potentially all revenue (likely a court determined percentage) that the model generated for them in addition to statutory damages. That is well north of 1.5 billion.
Which is kind of a pity. Anyone who’s ever written something on the net should be getting royalty checks from these fucks. I’m not exactly famous but I’ve written prolifically in my field of work and have gotten nearly word-for-word reproductions of my articles out of every big model I’ve tested since GPT-3.
Just noticed your reply and want to correct this. Anyhropic settled, the 1.5bil was not a judgment against them. Specifically, this covered the literal pirating of the training corpus. It had absolutely nothing to do with the way training on the data handled the training data--they literally torrented an enormous portion of their training corpus.
Anthropoc DID try to argue that because they used the pirated material for training a model, it was fair use. The judge correctly decided that doesn't make any fucking sense. Again, this is not about the models encoding data, it is literally just about the fact that these silly fucks torrented vast portions of their training corpus like college students building a porn library on college broadband.
So Anna's Archive is legal now?
As long as they cannot copyright what they generate from using the pirated materials
It's OK when corporations do it.
I saw this coming from 69 miles away
They didn't say seeding is fair use, just inherently part of torrenting. Good thing Sarah Silverman has pc gamer there to pander for her.
Copyrights over 5-10 years or not held by the creator are stealing from the commons/public domain and there is no moral obligation to follow those laws, and some would say a moral responsibility to share pirated copies of those works to everyone, not just corpo slop machines. Also good luck proving leading AI is a good thing and not destroying education and critical thinking skills.
Just spitballing...
If you were to train a model on just one book, as long as you don't prompt it to create an exact copy (maybe just some indiscernible differences) then presumably that's fair use.
Then, since we know AI generated work can't be copyrighted, does that essentially create a copyright-free version of the text which can be freely distributed?
did they have a library card? if so, then fuck off.
Yeaaah well. I'm just gonna say everything is free now.
(except if I explicitly want to give someone money of course. Surely not a company)