[tsimionescu]

> Humans can also reproduce copyrighted works from memory as well

That's simply not true. No humans can memorize entire novels, as this research proved these models do. And definitely not all of these novels, and code bases, and who knows what else all at the same time.

[vlabakje90]

They absolutely can. Millions of people can recite the Quran verbatim, word for word. That's 77797 words. There is even a title for those people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafiz_(Quran)

It's not far fetched to think that people could recite books just like an LLM. I don't know why they'd want to, but that's neither here nor there.

[gruez]

>No humans can memorize entire novels, as this research proved these models do.

Humans can however, remember entire songs, and songs are definitely long enough to be considered copyright protected. There is still a difference in scale, but that's not really relevant when it comes to copyright law. You can't be like "well humans are committing copyright infringement but since it's limited to a few hundred words we'll give it a pass".

[j_w]

It's not that you can remember a song and therefore copyright infringement when you sing.

For 99.999% of people that are singing a song, it's not a replacement for the original in any way shape or form, hard stop. Let's not pretend it could even get anywhere close.

For the last 0.001%, we would call it a cover and typically the individually doing a cover takes some liberties of their own, still making it not a replacement in any way. Artists are typically cool with covers.

[gruez]

>For 99.999% of people that are singing a song, it's not a replacement for the original in any way shape or form, hard stop. Let's not pretend it could even get anywhere close.

You realize that lyrics are often written by someone other than the actual singer, and whoever wrote the lyrics is entitled to compensation too? The "amateur singing isn't a replacement for the studio album" excuse doesn't work in this context. Also courts have ruled that lyrics themselves are protected by copyright.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyrics#Copyright_and_royalties

>Artists are typically cool with covers.

Artists being "cool" with something doesn't mean they're not violating copyright law.

[j_w]

Clearly the team, if it is a team, that is entitled to the copyright is entitled to the copyright of the song, that's a silly statement to make. Copyright belongs to some entity, obviously.

You were specifically calling out individuals singing a song, not publishing lyrics online. These are not the same thing. Again your distribution/consumption model matters here.

On artists being "cool" with it - if the copyright holder doesn't pursue you then does it matter? The only valid argument I would see here is if the copyright holder doesn't know about the infringement and therefore cannot seek remedies, but we can fish for illegal scenarios all day if we would like: that's not useful though.

[gruez]

>Clearly the team, if it is a team, that is entitled to the copyright is entitled to the copyright of the song, that's a silly statement to make. Copyright belongs to some entity, obviously.

>You were specifically calling out individuals singing a song, not publishing lyrics online. These are not the same thing. Again your distribution/consumption model matters here.

I'm not sure why you're so confidently dismissive here. I wasn't trying to claim that nobody owned the lyrics. I brought that point up because even in the case of an amateur singing a song, even if you accept the "for 99.999% of people that are singing a song, it's not a replacement for the original in any way shape or form" excuse, you're still infringing on the copyright of the lyrics, because it's a derivative work. Moreover it's unclear whether that excuse even works. If you make a low cost version of star wars, copying the screenplay exactly, that still seems like copyright infringement, even if "it's not a replacement for the original in any way shape or form".

>On artists being "cool" with it - if the copyright holder doesn't pursue you then does it matter?

Virtually nobody got sued for torrenting with a VPN on. Does that mean it's fair to round that off as being legal, because "if the copyright holder doesn't pursue you then does it matter"?

[j_w]

> Moreover it's unclear whether that excuse even works. If you make a low cost version of star wars, copying the screenplay exactly, that still seems like copyright infringement, even if "it's not a replacement for the original in any way shape or form".

Are you being intentionally obtuse here? Intention matters here.

> Virtually nobody got sued for torrenting with a VPN on.

Let's not use obviously illegal actions which are done covertly to act as an example that is in any way similar to singing a song in the "open."

[butlike]

If I sing a copyrighted song, however absurd it may sound, I CAN, in fact, be sued by the copyright holder.

[j_w]

Yes you could be sued for anything though. If it never happens to anyone (hyperbole) then does it matter?

[butlike]

I also was skeptical, but musical works makes more sense for that argument. Their premise is still flawed, though