wish I could change my terms to bar training of AI models on my content
Since it's using a large number of real user's devices, and closely mimicing real web browsers, it ends up looking incredibly similar to real user traffic.
Since twitter allows some amount of anonymous browsing, that's enough to get some amount of data out. You can also pay brightdata for one large aggregated dataset.
This is part of the AI revolution, user's devices being commandeered to DDoS small blogs and twitter alike to feed data to the beast.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42774179
TLDR: Use contract law so that I provide my content and they give me rights to all outputs.
So if anybody doing this can prove Acme Model contains their artwork, and Acme Model was used to generate some scenes used in a major movie, then Acme has already given the artist a right to share/resell those scenes. If Acme Inc. "sold" exclusive rights to a movie-studio, then either (A) they broke the contact with every contributor, or (B) they lied to the studio in that other contract.
Remember, the goal isn't some amazing "gotcha" where the latest blockbuster movie becomes public domain, but rather to create chronic legal pain and risk for companies like Acme so that they stop stealing stuff.
We're already seeing precedent that it might be.
https://www.ecjlaw.com/ecj-blog/kadrey-v-meta-the-first-majo...
The openness of the internet is a good thing, but it doesn't come without a cost. And the moment we have to pay that cost, we don't get to suddenly go, "well, openness turned out to be a mistake, let's close it all up and create a regulatory, bureaucratic nightmare". This is the tradeoff. Freedom for me, and thee.
Accordingly, anyone on the internet who wants to make comments about how they should be able to prevent others from training models on their data needs to demonstrate competence with respect to copyright by explaining why it's not fair use, as currently it is undecided in law and not something we can just take for granted.
Otherwise, such commenters should probably just let the courts work this one out or campaign for a different set of protection laws, as copyright may not be sufficient for the kind of control they are asking over random developers or organizations who want to train a statistical model on public data.
That said, I think we do agree. The plaintiff should be prepared to refute a fair-use argument raised by the defendant. I'm just noting that the refutation doesn't need to be part of the initial filing, it gets presented at trial, after discovery, and only if the defendant presents a fair-use defense. So they don't have to prove it's not fair use to win in every case. I'm probably also being excessively pedantic!
No, fair use is an affirmative defense for conduct that would otherwise be infringing. The onus is on the defendant to show that their use was fair.
Morally, perhaps, but not under US law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense#Fair_use
From the decision in 1841, in the US (Folsom vs Marsh):
> reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticize, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy
Further, to be "transformative", it is required that the new work is for a new purpose. It has to be done in such a way that it basically is not competing with the original at all.
Using my creative works, to create creative works, is rather clearly an act of piracy. And the methods engaged, to enable to do so, are also clearly piracy.
Where would training a model here, possibly be fair use?
I do however understand why you would be upset if Meta or OpenAI hosts/distributes a model that could fully reproduce your books (assuming that is really the case) and make money providing that information.
That said, and I'm not trying to move goalposts here, I just don't personally find Meta in particular to be morally at fault, as I already have particular views on the freedom for myself and others to share information with each other that may be incompatible with your views (and to be clear, as an artist and open source engineer I do have an informed personal opinion on this matter, I have deeply considered and continue to reconsider the balance of freedoms required for artists to make a living off their craft without infringing upon what I see as inalienable personal freedoms).
Meta released their models publicly and freely after investing a lot of time and money into them, and I see it as a net good for humanity to have access to these incredible neural networks that were relegated to science fiction just a few years ago.
I also think LLMs are going to force us to rethink our entire approach to copyright. Whether that means abandoning our current notions of copyright entirely, or creating residuals for hosted commercial LLMs, or something else, I don't know.