Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Patrick C Miller :donor: (patrickcmiller@infosec.exchange)'s status on Monday, 05-May-2025 07:12:23 JST Patrick C Miller :donor:

   Judge on Meta’s AI training: “I just don’t understand how that can be fair use” https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/05/judge-on-metas-ai-training-i-just-dont-understand-how-that-can-be-fair-use/

   • Embed this notice
     David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*) (david_chisnall@infosec.exchange)'s status on Monday, 05-May-2025 17:16:24 JST David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)

     in reply to

     @patrickcmiller

     Judge Vince Chhabria pushed back on Meta attorneys arguing that the company's Llama AI models posed no threat to authors in their markets

     Even if this were 100% true, it doesn't matter. The DMCA established statutory damages in addition to actual damages for copyright infringement. You don't have to show that you lost money as a result of copyright infringement, only that the infringement occurred. I'm not a fan of this, given how it's been abused, but if the law is going to be enforced against poor people it should be enforced against multi-billion-dollar corporations.

     The argument that I'd love to see them make is that training a neural network is a form of lossy compression (they can easily find expert witnesses to testify this). If training a neural network is not copyright infringement then a camera recording of a cinema is not and neither is creating an H.264 rip of a DVD. And that's really not a precedent anyone wants to set.