Pirating books is not fair use. Using copyrighted works to train an AI model is not fair use. People seem to grossly misunderstand what fair use is, and how limited its scope is. Don’t believe me? Here’s legal the precedent
In his June ruling, Judge Alsup agreed with Anthropic’s argument, stating the company’s use of books by the plaintiffs to train their AI model was acceptable.
“The training use was a fair use,” he wrote. “The use of the books at issue to train Claude and its precursors was exceedingly transformative.”
However, the judge ruled that Anthropic’s use of millions of pirated books to build its models – books that websites such as Library Genesis (LibGen) and Pirate Library Mirror (PiLiMi) copied without getting the authors’ consent or giving them compensation – was not.
Pirating isn’t but training on copyrighted works is fair use, you just have to buy them.
I was referring to Altman lobbying towards considering AI training as fair use of copyrighted material.
I know that pirating is not fair use. However, AI companies seem to rely on pirated copies to train their slop machines, and they are trying to justify this behavior.
Pirating books is not fair use. Using copyrighted works to train an AI model is not fair use. People seem to grossly misunderstand what fair use is, and how limited its scope is. Don’t believe me? Here’s legal the precedent
Pirating isn’t but training on copyrighted works is fair use, you just have to buy them.
So they can train with books they have legal acces to? Either bought, rent or licensed?
I was referring to Altman lobbying towards considering AI training as fair use of copyrighted material.
I know that pirating is not fair use. However, AI companies seem to rely on pirated copies to train their slop machines, and they are trying to justify this behavior.