[7speter]

The judge is claiming that because the use is of the books are “so transformative,” the usage of these books to train an llm is fair use.

I’m not familiar with the facts of the case and IANAL, and its late, but how did the plaintiffs determine their books were being used for training of the llm? Was the model spitting out language that was similar or verbatim to their works?

[bilekas]

> The judge is claiming that because the use is of the books are “so transformative,” the usage of these books to train an llm is fair use.

Maybe I'm mistaken but shouldn't the source come from a legal source ? This is not public domain material.

Again if I download the entire works of HBO tv shows, then make a "transformative" version on my iphone, how can that be considered fair use?

[bawolff]

> Maybe I'm mistaken but shouldn't the source come from a legal source

There is no such thing as a legal or illegal source, only legal or illegal uses.

If the use was legal, then it doesn't matter where you got the material from. Similary if you got the material via more conventional means it would still be copyright infringement if you used it in an illegal way.

> Again if I download the entire works of HBO tv shows, then make a "transformative" version on my iphone, how can that be considered fair use?

That wouldn't be considered transformative. In this context "transformative" means you transformed it into something with a different purpose than the original.

However if you for example made a video essay for youtube talking about the themes (or whatever) of the tv show including clips from it, that would be transformative and probably fine.

[bilekas]

> However if you for example made a video essay for youtube talking about the themes (or whatever) of the tv show including clips from it, that would be transformative and probably fine.

Then I get a free pass when downloading the entire disney collection but making a youtube essay video for each downloaded item? So long as I don't seed of course.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but surely you can see how that will never pass muster.

[Uw7yTcf36gTc]

downloading is not the illegal part. distribution is the illegal part.

if you watch a video from a site that has a Disney movie on there, the site distributing the content to you is doing the illegal part. You are not doing anything illegal (AFAIK).

[zx8080]

It'll be, but in a slightly different way. As it will be considered _fair_ for the Warner Bros to sue you dry.

[bawolff]

> but how did the plaintiffs determine their books were being used for training of the llm?

I think facebook admited this. I don't think the fact of this is under dispute.

[Incipient]

>The judge is claiming that because the use is of the books are “so transformative,” the usage of these books to train an llm is fair use.

"you're doing something so critical to our (country's) success, that we're ok to waive copyright. I get that, if the US doesn't do it, then China will(is).

Interesting judgement, and it's implications, if you are correct haha.

[HPsquared]

"Transformative" is a legal term with a specific meaning. The copyrighted work has to be transformed somehow rather than copied.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformative_use

[Incipient]

Ahh, good pick up. Thanks, I definitely had the wrong understanding of transformative. Mostly around transforming the use case.