Pretty disgustingly wasteful, but this mechanism is how books commonly get digitized. There is no production-scale non-destructive book scanner, as far as I know. The fair use ruling in this case boils down to, as I read it, the "transformative" nature of processing the books for training. - ThreadSky

taggart-tech.com • 4 days ago

Pretty disgustingly wasteful, but this mechanism is how books commonly get digitized. There is no production-scale non-destructive book scanner, as far as I know.

The fair use ruling in this case boils down to, as I read it, the "transformative" nature of processing the books for training.

Comments

taggart-tech.com•4 days ago

The plaintiffs specifically did not focus on the output of Anthropic's models, but on its input. It is asserted that Anthropic's models have not reproduced authors' works in part or in whole as output. If this were ever to be disproven, a major pillar of the ruling disappears.

erisianrite.com•4 days ago

I don’t think that’s an entirely accurate read. The judge argues in the ruling that should anyone reproduce a protected work, even though the possibility is vanishingly small, any resultant violation for commercial use of that work is on them, not Anthropic.

taggart-tech.com•4 days ago

That, I suspect, will be hotly contested. Other cases in progress do argue on the outputs. And we have nothing yet about model owners' responsibility for preventing copyright infringement by users, do we? What we have is prevention for their own liability.

erisianrite.com•4 days ago

I’m sure it’ll be contested because that’s just how Big Publishing acts, but it would follow previous rulings that the judge cites like Sony v Universal

taggart-tech.com•4 days ago

Another interesting note from this ruling: it codifies the legality of ripping your physical media.

"Storage and searchability are not creative properties of the copyrighted work itself but physical properties of the frame around the work or informational properties about the work."

taggart-tech.com•4 days ago

Therefore the digitization of the legally-obtained books was totally fine. Although the ruling suggests that the destruction of the original matters, since "one replaced the other."

subtee.bsky.social•4 days ago

Wow, wasn’t aware. That’s crazy.

taggart-tech.com•4 days ago

On the non-destructive scanning point: this video is 12 years old and I'm still waiting for this to become a reality at scale. Note that the 250 pages/min absolute wrecks the Google Books non-destructive scanner rate of 1000 pages/hr.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply