[berkes]

Isn't copyright about reproducing and/or distributing?

Does training a model count as reproduction or distribution?

Or can copyright say something about how I consume my books? Can copyright prohibit me to light a fire, or whipe my behind with, say Harry Potter and the goblet of fire?

[UncleEntity]

> Or can copyright say something about how I consume my books?

It cannot.

This whole kerfuffle isn't about OpenAI buying a bunch of books and disposing of them in a non-copyright friendly way though.

[freejazz]

Questions like these are so far below a level of reasonable discourse that they are detrimental.

[TremendousJudge]

Well you usually cannot sell derivative works as your own.

[berkes]

But is training a model "selling derivatives"? And is so, of what?

[freejazz]

If it so, that's copyright infringement. The pending litigations are, in part, to resolve the dispute about whether or not they are "selling derivates." I'm not sure why you conflate your own personal lack of knowledge about these matters with a good argument against the copyright holders.

[berkes]

Judging from your derogatory replies, you hold a strong opinion on the matter.

Is that opinion based on facts and actual cases? Because as far as I know, the entire reason we have these law suits as presented in TLA, is to find out how the law stands on the exact questions that I pose.

So far, it seems copyright (in its current form) isn't suitable for (content) creators to prohibit LLM-researchers and -providers from training models on their creations.

[freejazz]

Which opinion?

[yazzku]

I am not sure if you meant 'wipe' or 'whip', but under the assumption of the former, I do not recommend Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire for the canonical wiping of the ass. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is where the game is, and always was, to the chagrin of many a copyright troll. I speak directly from experience.