|
>"preponderance of evidence," Yes, which as I said above, is the act of distribution in most cases. If you don't distribute it or sell a service around it, it isn't worth my time to sue. >Napster cases, the RIAA had to show people actually violated copyright, not that they just had Napster installed or used it for non-copyrighted works. Yes, and if someone distributes an LLM or sells access to an LLM, and then someone uses that to reproduce my copyrighted work, or I go to the model/service and have it reproduce my copyrighted work, then I can show to the court that it has been done, not merely can be done. >you could only sue Megaupload for knowingly not complying with copyright law That's the really fucked up part of Megaupload, which is why I brought it up as an example of how tilted the law is in favor of copyright holders: They did not prove Megaupload nor Kim Dotcom knowingly did that, and Megaupload and Dotcom proved they did comply with the law, promptly and in full. They did the exact same level of diligence that I'd expect from any competing storage bucket company, yet Dotcom's house was raided by a joint US/NZ team at his house in NZ as if he was some terrorist. They are still trying to extradite him for "crimes", where his "crimes" are that he complied with the same laws Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Dropbox, etc comply with, with the same diligence that they do. Given all of what I've said, you cannot actually make the argument that I can't sue. If someone reproduces my copyrighted work, I can, in good faith, sue them for that. Doing it through an LLM does not give them a free pass, they cannot argue to the court that they didn't know the LLM was trained on pirated works, they cannot argue to the court that they didn't understand how LLMs work. They still reproduced and distributed the copyrighted work, which is what damns them. Again, you seem to think suing people for copyright violations is a free money cheat code, and you've been unable to tell me why doing it with an LLM is different than any other copyright violation, while I've given examples of case law for both sides on how this might play out. If suing someone that violated copyright is a free money cheat code, then companies like Disney are the biggest cheaters in history. >I'm not going to respond to this thread anymore
IANAL, IANYL, but I think that's a good choice. |