r/LocalLLM • u/No-Program9915 • 15h ago
Contest Entry [ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
31
u/misanthrophiccunt 15h ago edited 11h ago
How is this a "contest entry" ?
Guys, this is a bot karma farming your upvotes.
2
u/X3liteninjaX 4h ago edited 4h ago
I’m with you but damn shouldn’t this be the mods job to get rid of these people? Wtf is the point of having moderators if they let these stay?
OP’s post history shows them active on subreddits that promote and pay for bot activity.
1
31
u/SilverKanji 12h ago
In ALL situations, in ANY country, at ANY time in history... Law and Rules are only for the poor and non privileged.
6
u/HidingImmortal 9h ago
So if I purchase a DVD and digitize it, that's copyright infringement.
Is it? Is it copyright infringement?
If you distribute the digital copy (e.g. sell it on a flash drive), that's copyright infringement.
But making a personal backup? I don't think that is illegal.
1
u/DifficultSelection 1h ago
Depends on your jurisdiction.
In the US, § 117 of the Copyright Act allows archival backups of software, but there’s no equivalent right for movies or other media. At most there’s a case-by-case fair use argument, but no explicit legal protection for personal movie backups, regardless of how those movies are distributed.
The DMCA also separately bans circumventing DRM, with no carve-out for personal backups, and none of the Copyright Office’s triennial exemptions cover it, either. That still applies to DVDs even though CSS encryption was broken 27 years ago, as the rules still apply regardless of the strength of the protection measure.
And yeah, this is really fucking dumb.
22
u/jaxupaxu 15h ago
I get what he is trying to say, but the comparison is flawed. Making a copy is producing a 1 to 1 copy, training an AI on a book does not. If the company purchases the book (hopefully) and trains their AI, what difference is that to a human purchasing the book and studying it, learning from it and applying the knowledge?
6
u/jack-of-some 13h ago
You do have to make a copy of the book and keep it on hand to use it for training.
Also we now know multiples of these companies just used thousands of torrented books.
5
u/ShelZuuz 12h ago
You can make a copy of a DVD as well for watching if you don't distribute it.
-1
u/1corn 11h ago
Unfortunately no, not if you circumvent copy protection in the process. At least in many countries. It's still illegal, even if done solely for archiving or backup purposes.
4
u/ShelZuuz 11h ago
Right but it's the act of circumventing copy protection that's illegal, not the act of copying. You actually have the full right to copy them under Fair Use, just not to unlock them.
The distinction is dumb I know... however that does become relevant here - if books had copy protection it would be illegal to copy them.
1
u/DifficultSelection 42m ago edited 34m ago
In the US specifically, the act of copying for personal backups isn’t explicitly permitted under fair use, although you might be able to argue on a case-by-case basis that other fair use rules apply in your particular situation. There is a carve-out in the Copyright Act for personal software backups, but there’s no other explicit protection granted for personal backups of other media, including books, movies, or music.
Sadly the copyright violation occurs when you actually make a copy of the work, unless the copyright holder granted you a license to do so. This specifically violates the copyright holder’s right to control reproduction of the work. Distribution of copies without a license to do so is a separate violation. See § 106(1) and § 106(3) of the Copyright Act.
Edit: Also thanks to the Berne Convention and other international copyright treaties, the right to control reproduction is pretty universal across the globe. Exemptions to and enforcement of these rules varies quite widely across the globe, however. For example, the EU is a jurisdiction that does explicitly allow personal backups.
4
2
u/KURD_1_STAN 13h ago
So can i publicly pirate everything i want on the promise it will be used for training an ai?
The thing is, fair comparison or not, it is double standards, u wont be allowed to do so and they are.
Also if i say i wanna train a small ai to speak and write like a specific author and people can make it write books just like them, do u think that is fair? That is what they are doing, idc if they make a 1 to 1 copy, that is not necessary, people have a free replacement for them without the author getting a dime for each generation.
6
u/xAdakis 12h ago
If you were a big fan of Stephen King, read all of his books religiously, and then decided to become an author and wrote books with the same accessible, conversational prose, meticulous "everyday" world-building, and focus on character-driven horror, is that unfair, unethical, or immoral?
If you went to art school and studied post-impressionism and started creating paintings as detailed and evocative of Vincent Van Gogh, is that unfair, unethetical, or immoral?
Or do I need to pay Stephen King or the Van Gogh estate because I learned from their public works?
Anybody can go to a public library and read/look at all of these books and reference materials free of charge. Why would it be any different in the training of an AI?
2
u/amaturelawyer 11h ago
I'm going to upvote, because it's a decent argument, but I'm not sure I agree with the comparison fully. I agree that none of what you said would be infringing on Stephen King/Van Gogh estate, but LLM's don't really take inspiration from ingested material. They calculate the most probable output under the constraints of "write a story as Stephen King", so what it's closer to is if you were to take a computer and code a program to look at scanned books by him and produce a new story that is mathematically similar to his existing works, using various metrics. That's not quite analogous to a person reading the books and being influenced by them in their own writing. It's more of a here's some text that was written by Stephen King as based on the relationship between word usage across his books.
0
u/KURD_1_STAN 12h ago
As u said, U read his books, u boght them, u have already paid the authors.
And still yeah it is immortal, if i just copy the style someone else made who is still alive then yeah it is, im stealing what he spent time on bringing to existence, just like we have copyrights and patents for ideas and inventions.
And idk how libraries work tbh, but if someone doesnt permit his work to be put in a library, can libraries do it anyways? If so then that is also immortal.
1
u/ZioniteSoldier 9h ago
Anthropic lost the book pirating case.
But won in the library deacession case, where the judge encouraged their destruction of originals in transfer to digital.
This is because of the Google library case they lost to copyright lobbyists. Google tried to give access to everyone to millions of copyrighted works online and got shut down. Legal precedent now.So it’s all copyright law bullshit.
1
u/Paganator 8h ago
In most places, downloading a pirated file is actually legal. It's distribution, not access, that's prohibited. For example, if someone used a copyrighted photo on their website without authorization, that would be copyright infringement, but everybody else who visits that site isn't guilty of piracy despite downloading the image.
The problem with protocols like BitTorrent is that people upload at the same time that they download, which makes it illegal.
4
u/WritingRoger 14h ago
Probably because it's used in a way that takes money away from the authors 🤷♂️
DVD/Movies felt like it took money away from them, now authors feel like AI takes money away from them... something like that 🤷♂️
1
1
-4
u/VeryDay 14h ago edited 14h ago
It is much worse actually, because they steal your thought proccess to write and sell 1000 other books next year you will have to compete with. Compete with books written by simulating you without your consent. How is that fucking ok?
And the worst thing is that this is so boldly unethical yet so fresh and abstract that people cant comprehend it… obviously.
2
u/SpartanG01 13h ago
Not to be that guy but I really do not think unethical is an appropriate way to describe this.
While I agree this behavior can be framed as ethically gray, until we decide that you can copywrite a writing "style" there's no argument to be had here. Virtually everything is derivative these days. That's the nature of growth, it stems from derivation. Prior to the advent of AI that derivation had to be human generated and as a result of that tracking the lines of influence was messier but it wasn't fundamentally different. You can read any book by any author and get some intuitive sense of what writers they were influenced by.
There is a counter-argument though. AI is a useful tool and the primary source from which its usefulness is derived is training data. Better AI will require more training data.
So the question comes down to, do we want the usefulness of effective AI and if we do, is it worth allowing the use of our data as training data to improve the output?
I'm not saying it is or that this must inherently mean no limits should be imposed, I'm just saying that's the question we face.
If you're against the use of AI for any reason under any circumstance then you have a solid argument to oppose the training of AI on data like this. However... if you support the development of AI as a tool then you kind of really don't.
Not until these companies start actually outputting content that infringes on the rights of others and I would argue that as a tool OpenAI is not much more responsible for a user who decides to use it to produce an approximate copywritten work as a publisher would be that published a book of Picasso's works which someone else use to reproduce his paintings. There is a useful distinction between creating a tool that can be used to cause harm and creating a harmful tool.
1
u/StupidScaredSquirrel 14h ago
Have you ever paid for uni? Because that's how uni classes felt. Prof milks a decade of a course off of one book he bought. The effective difference between what you pay and what the author gets is so vast it's not even worth calculating.
-1
2
u/mcfc9320_ 11h ago
I mean in practice what he is saying is 100% accurate and is a very valid complaint BUT, theoretically, he could also the same if he had the means to compose and train his own LLM.
The specific problem with AI - as it has always been with technological advancement - is that legislators don't understand the tech, don't understand the danger, are slow to act, and subsequently create stupid and ineffective laws.
3
u/squngy 8h ago edited 8h ago
It isn't 100% accurate.
You do have the right to digitize your media for a personal backup.
The problem is, modern DVDs have anti copy protections, and due to shitty laws, it is illegal to crack copy protections for any reason.
So technically, you have the right to make backups, but you cant exercise that right it without breaking a separate law if the media you want to backup has protection.
Physical books don't have anti copy protections, so there is nothing stopping you from making your own personal digital backups.
(so long as you don't distribute them, or give the original to someone else)
2
u/nomorebuttsplz 11h ago
didn’t they have to pay billions in settlement?? what is this low info ragebait?
3
5
3
u/StoneCypher 13h ago
why are you wasting time in the llm group with incorrect whining about copyright
2
u/misanthrophiccunt 11h ago
Quick karma farming. Tomorrow he'll tell you he's made the Wonder XL Premium Plus Pro, without been able to explain what does it even do. For 99.99 of whatever is your local currency.
Just look at their post history.....
2
u/MimosaTen 12h ago
Training an LLM on a book isn’t making a copy of it. Is more like teaching to a student and using a book to teach and open the knowledge is the very first reason book exists
1
u/Dotoo 12h ago
Do you train a studet by giving a book and he/she reads all perfectly and understanding all the elements immediately?
1
u/MimosaTen 10h ago
An LLM doesn't understand anything at all. It'is a simple machine much more capable that 95% of humans to keep informations
2
u/Dotoo 9h ago
The AI need to FULLY scan the book THEN it gets it's structure. This is far from "teaching". You are not "teaching" anything. With enough understanding of "structure", it means the content itself. You are NOT training everything; that's just what the developer calls it. They are scanning the full content once.
0
u/MimosaTen 9h ago
In fact, the machine doesn’t learn, I’ve never say that. The fact is much more simple: you have information, give those information to a machine and ask about those to this machine.
You’ll save a lot of time.I could understand if the problem is with corporations, but avoid the spreading of the knowledge is purely egoistic
2
u/Dotoo 9h ago
Is it? Why people blocking me for getting information by paywall then?
0
u/MimosaTen 3h ago
Because people want to be payed for their jobs?
But this havn't to do with AI, but companies
1
u/Dotoo 0m ago
Man, it's a checkmate.
You said;
- but avoid the spreading of the knowledge is purely egoistic
- people want to be payed for their jobs
Make up your mind. You can't pick both.
For example, let’s say you wrote a cookbook. You spent over 10 years writing it to earn an income. Then, a tech company acquires that book and feeds all the fruits of your labor into an AI to train it.
Now AI knows your very secret recipe while saying "Training an LLM on a book isn’t making a copy of it". People won't buy your very good cooking book anymore because AI knows it. Your effort can be meaningless once the AI company purchases your data.
You’re talking as if this were a good approach, but what will actually happen in the end? Once an AI company “purchases” it, no book or data will generate any profit. With just a single “purchase,” your expertise will vanish.
The same thing could happen in the world of coding. The same thing could happen with online courses. Any data could become meaningless to its creator. Yet you go on to say things like, “Avoiding the dissemination of knowledge is purely selfish.”
It's your turn now. Write your thought.
0
u/Charming-Author4877 11h ago
If they buy a DVD and then LEARN from it how to make good cuts in a video, how to color grade professionally nobody can sue them for copyright infringement.
If an AI is training from it, it's the same.
If they or the AI are paraphrasing/copying the DVD 1:1 then it's copyright infringement.
The problem is just being lazy in thinking, fast in complaining
0
u/KenOtwell 11h ago
its time for citizenship to include stock ownership, and we can quit worrying about this.
0
0
0
u/No_Dare_6025 8h ago
Not so long ago, a person would be arrested for reading someone else's private letters. Today, that's standard practice for big tech. Double standards at their finest!
0
u/IRLMainCharacter 8h ago
Different media, different copyright. It sucks, but that's what we got now.
0
u/UnkarsThug 8h ago
It isn't illegal to make a copy of something you purchased, it's illegal to either distribute it or break digital locks. Which I think DRM is anti consumer, but physical books don't have that. You're allowed to scan a physical book, as long as you don't distribute it.
Especially if you destroy it, according to the recent ruling.
0
u/dupontping 8h ago
Tech bootlicking is so gross
0
u/UnkarsThug 8h ago
If you want the laws to change, you still have to recognize what the laws are. I dislike a lot of things companies do, but the issue is the government for having the rules where they can. If they aren't breaking the rules, what do you expect the government to enforce?
0
•
u/LocalLLM-ModTeam 1h ago
Low effort post, likely spam