• Mister_Hangman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 minutes ago

    I ficking hope so. Either all profits aren’t privatized and distributed socially or blow the whole thing up.

  • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    52 minutes ago

    The headline isn’t correct. This ruling is about a specific element of Fair Use, not a blanket declaration that copyrighted data cannot be used to train models as the headline suggests.

    Fair Use requires some conditions be met. The one that wasn’t met here was that the work you’re creating can’t compete with the copyright owner.

    From the Reuters article:

    “Ross took the headnotes to make it easier to develop a competing legal research tool,” the judge said. “So ​Ross’s use is not transformative.”

    In other cases, for example the Author’s Guild lawsuit against Meta/Anthropic/etc courts have ruled that using books to train LLMs is fair use because LLMs and books don’t compete.

    They were required to pay for the books, but not prevented by copyright from using them to train a model.

    There’s nothing novel happening in this case from a legal perspective. Maybe this is the first case where the defendant didn’t clear the elements of fair use but those elements predate AI by decades and have been uses in thousands of cases.

  • Hueristic_Autistic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 hour ago

    Still doesn’t prevent data mining of forums for, “training.” Still doesn’t give people who’s contributed on forums a check for being of value to big tech. If they cared at all they’d be paying us money to train AI until it’s established. Google is offering points for data rather than money (https://deviceusagestudy.google/signup/invitecode) I only know that because I got a flier in the mail which means they’re desperate to get people to sign up.

  • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    As much as I hate AI, current copyright laws are out of control and are extended well beyond what they should be used for.

  • skibidi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    6 hours ago

    When peasants were able to copy ‘intellectual property’ for personal benefit and enjoyment, it was a massive crime. When the oligarchs can steal - everything - for the slight chance of paying less in wages, it is an innovation.

    I think it is pretty much certain the model companies escape any penalty for their mass theft of IP. There will be some settlements and token penalties that sound big on paper, but are nothing compared to the market valuations.

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Not really. We had collage and training any kind of AI was fine before all this. There’s blood in the water and copyright companies can smell it.

      OpenAI is happy to give them a piece of the pie if that means they are the only ones allowed to sell it to consumers.

      You are right about the penalty being pennys compared to their profits. It’s not meant to punish them but help them build a moat, the one that got destroyed by China a few months ago.

  • mycodesucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    This is your reminder that in 2026 absolutely ZERO court rulings matter long term except the Supreme Court, which is captured for life by conservatives.

    No matter who wins the midterms or even the next election, that is with us for the rest of most of our lives.

    What a time to be alive.

    • PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      This is why the court MUST be packed. FDR threatened to do it 90 years ago, and the Dems better do it this time or else face another Trump again.

    • HasturInYellow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      It very much is not. It is in effect until the end of the United States. This will be long before most of us die.

      The future will be getting very bad very fast and most nation states will collapse in a few decades.

      So there’s that I guess.

      • mycodesucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I think you are DRASTICALLY underestimating how durable fascist regimes are. Without external intervention they can continue for DECADES. Societies don’t just collapse when people get fed up.

        • HasturInYellow@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          38 minutes ago

          I don’t mean when people are fed up. I mean when millions are starving to death and the firestorms are ravaging our croplands. When the hurricanes give us a Katrina level disaster 6 times a year. When it becomes literally impossible for organized society to maintain itself.

          This is happening sooner than you think.

        • Zink@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          59 minutes ago

          Maybe they meant the end of “the United States as we know it,” which could be right. Or, arguably, already is.

          But as a lifelong resident of the US, your point about how long regimes can last is extra scary. Two of the biggest facets of this country’s identity have been that we have a lot of money/resources and that we have a lot of weapons. Plus we have our special brand of “fuck y’all; got mine” culture.

          It seems like a nasty recipe for a fascist regime to isolate and turtle up and just grind along for half a century.

    • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      If it’s any comfort, there’s a good chance the sunlight won’t be reaching the suface of the earth for much of 2027, so we won’t be alive for too much longer.

  • danc4498@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    9 hours ago

    I think this should be the reasoning politicians use to make AI companies owned by the public.

    These AI models are nothing without all the data they were trained on. All this data is content produced by humans throughout history. AI is the ultimate product of thousands of years of human progress. Why should we allow corporations to be the primary beneficiaries of this?

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      Best case scenario but that’s not the one we will be getting.

      Copyright juggernauts and data brokers, the ones that actually own all the data like Reddit and universal records, will get paid.

      Open weight models won’t be allowed in business contexts or to be served online, OpenAI and company get a fat monopoly which suits them.

      People are cheering for their own doom. The handful of big AI company are going to end up owning a solid chunk of the economy. It’s basically going to be an AI tax.

      You will be replaced by an agent, OpenAI will only sell them to your employer in bulk at a stupid price so you can’t turn around and compete. That bulk price per agent will still be cheaper than your monthly wage.

      Find me one politician that even mentioned forcing these models public. It’s a fantasy.

      • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        The current copyright system is a artifact of US-dominated systems the world is rapidly disassociating itself from.

        The worst case scenario is American companies are able to lock down the United States, but the rest of the world will ignore it.

  • eicker@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    10 hours ago

    AI companies spent years treating copyright like a Terms of Service box nobody reads. Now a court has suggested that »we copied it to build a competing product« may not magically become fair use because you sprinkle AI on top. Turns out disruption is slightly less fun when the disrupted people have lawyers.

    • errer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Yeah…no. This is going to the Supreme Court and there’s zero chance their right wing, Trump-choad-gargling asses don’t rule in favor of AI companies.

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    7 hours ago

    All LLM code output is now copyleft because there was GPL stuff in the training data, LOL!

    spoiler

    (Actually it’s probably all just copyright infringement and not usable at all because of all the conflicting licenses, but a guy can dream…)

  • MisterD@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    This court finds AI guilty of copyright infringement.

    The penalty will be… NOTHING!

  • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    5 hours ago

    Now I feel bad for basing my programming career on material I apparently “stole” from books and other copyrighted sources. Hell, sometimes I even straight-up copypasted example code. I blame society.

  • folekaule@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Immediately made me think of Betteridge’s law of headlines.

    I will remain cautiously optimistic but until it makes it through Supreme Court it’s not a done deal.