Hacker News Reader

Comment by qarl | Hacker News Reader

So if we invent a way for those people to talk to everyone in the world - then they would be a criminal for reading books whether they recited or not?

You're not making sense.

The problem is the reciting. Not the reading. And hence, not the training.

View on HN

If you would go on a tv and read out loud a book you have not purchased rights to present, according to the most copyright laws in the world, yes you would and you would get a fine. Similarly if you broadcast a tv-show you have not purchased rights would.

Whether this is right or not is a seperate question.

> If you would go on a tv and read out loud a book

That is not the situation we are discussing. No one is arguing that what you describe is infringement.

What we are discussing is the training - which happens BEFORE the broadcast. It is analogous to reading. Is simply READING the material an infringement.

Using analogies like "reading" to describe AI training is quite misleading imho. Training effectively embeds the book's contents into the model's weights. Changing the format doesn't change the content; a better analogy is distributing a book's text within software.

Current copyright laws are simply not prepared for this unprecedented use.

> Training effectively embeds the book's contents into the model's weights. Changing the format doesn't change the content

Reading a book embeds its contents into your brain. And yet, that is considered fair use.

I agree, the analogies are meaningless in a legal context. In the legal context, the courts disagree with you.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but the comparison is breaking down here. Reading a book is the specific intended purpose. It's why the book exists, not just fair use. If you couldn't remember what was going on in the book as you read it, it would be worthless.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com