164
Music publishers sue Anthropic, allege "blantant theft" of copyrighted music (www.axios.com)
submitted 1 week ago* by [M] to c/news@lemmy.world
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Some of the world's largest music publishers filed a blockbuster lawsuit against Anthropic late Friday night, alleging "one of the largest and most blatant ongoing thefts of intellectual property in history."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 1 week ago (1 child)

A couple of things I think are slightly off:

  • They destroy the books because it allows them to scan them better. With the spine sliced off, a machine can automatically go through the pages, and there is no distortion or shadow at the middle.
  • There's no need to do this legally - they could donate used books. The argument shows that the final product is transformative, so it doesn't matter whether they keep the books or not.
  • LLMs can reproduce quite long passages of books, though I don't think this changes the argument much, because it's not reliable or useful.

I always thought there was in obvious win where companies doing this could be forced to archive the scan publicly (after some period of time). They'd be able to use it/sell it for training, but we wouldn't lose rare books forever.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    They destroy the books because it allows them to scan them bette

    That's definitely one reason, but the copyright argument is also a part of it. The court explicitly said that their digitization is legal only if does not increase the number of copies of the book.

    There's no need to do this legally - they could donate used books. The argument shows that the final product is transformative, so it doesn't matter whether they keep the books or not.

    They have to keep the digital copy of the book because they add it to the training corpus for the LLM. Selling or donating the original physical book after doing that would void the fair use argument.

    LLMs can reproduce quite long passages of books, though I don't think this changes the argument much, because it's not reliable or useful.

    One of the tests that determines if it's fair use or not is whether it can serve as a replacement for the original book. Pirated copies can, which is why they're illegal. A summary like CliffNotes can't. Even if the LLM can reproduce long passages, you can't do that reliably (like you said) and it won't work for all books.

    I always thought there was in obvious win where companies doing this could be forced to archive the scan publicly (after some period of time)

    I definitely agree with this. I think copyright law needs to be modernized to handle cases like this. I think the AI companies should be allowed to donate the digital copy to a library (like the Internet Archive) while still being allowed to keep their copy in their training corpus.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    I think copyright law already needed to be modernised... and the way I think it could be done well is consistent with AI training needs. So the whole thing doesn't really bother me. I'm surprised this angle incenses Lemmy so much because I'd have thought we'd on the whole by very anti-copyright in its current form.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent