points by CPUHall 2 days ago | 0 comments
Title is misleading. The ruling said training on books is fair use. What got them in trouble was grabbing the books from LibGen instead of just buying them, which is a pretty dumb way to lose $1.5B. If I torrented half a million books I'd be getting a lot more than a $3k-per-book settlement.
[–] simonw 2 days ago
[–] HDThoreaun 2 days ago
We went through this with Google. Scanning books is legal as long as you then immediately destroy them. Then since training with material you own is fair use they’re good to go.
[–] rpdillon 2 days ago
> which appears be legal.
Interesting phrasing from you, Simon. Is there any legal theory under which it should be illegal?
[–] skew-aberration 2 days ago
LLMs can reproduce the training data verbatim, under some circumstances. They have to be trained not to.
[–] simonw 2 days ago
No idea, I'm not a lawyer.
[–] FireBeyond 2 days ago
Appears to be legal in that current rulings and legislation say that to do so does not run afoul of fair use.
[–] car 2 days ago
Thanks, I’ve changed the submission title from the author’s original.
[–] Madmallard 2 days ago
"The ruling said training on books is fair use."
Like when people bring this up as if it's somehow just like acceptable.
It's not at all. That's utter bullshit. The people that run the courts have been bought out. They have no idea what the far-reaching consequences of this is.
They've since bought vast numbers of second hand books and scanned those for training, which appears be legal.