HN user
20 years is the max length of nearly all patents. So you really aren't giving them any concession there.
Also, all patents are monopoly. That is actually what a patent provides, it provides a limited government sanctioned monopoly over the invention.
the real issue is that the Thaler case was a different question: "Can AI be an author?" and the lower Court said no and SCOTUS left it along. But the question of "what is enough for the human to be the author" wasn't even part of the case. That is completely own checked.
Also, I don't think there is any example testing the conclusion. There is no case to point at that any of the factors they listed are sufficient to convey authorship. Would love to be pointed to a case where rejecting decisions and redirecting to a different approach was deemed human authorship. What we do know is that you can disclaim the part of the code a human didn't author. In fact, the Copyright Office requires you disclose and disclaim. If anyone out there has more factual and citable sources please share.
It will just be an arms race if we try to prove "not genAI." Detectors will improve, genAI will improve without marking (opensource and state actors will have unmarked genAI even if we mandate it).
Marking real from lense through digital life is more practical. But then what do we do with all the existing hardware that doesn't mark real and media that preexisited this problem.
Cost -- it is way cheaper to use IPR and avoid discovery associated with the other factors that happen at trial. Speed, the PTO is generally faster.
There is a fairly vocal contingent of patent people on LinkedIn swearing this is good for the solo guy, the small independent inventor. But yes, it does feel like it will be trolls that are in favor -- maybe some pharma wants this.
There was an extension. I don't have link handy, but an extra 15 days were provided.
Generally curious, I don't see anything about hardware. Isn't this is about making a login that doesn't require you to login to MS's cloud. Also, what HW restriction does Microsoft want? Why do they care?
That is only relevant to whether it is fair use not to whether the copying is an infringement. Fair use is what is called an affirmative defense -- it means that yes what I did was technically a violation but is forgiven. So on technicalities the copying is an infringement but that infringement is "okay" because there is a fair use. A different scenario is if the copyright owner gives you a license to copy the work (like open source licenses). In that scenario the copying was not an infringement because a license exists.
Actually, the court really only said downloading a pirated book to store in your "library" was bad. The opinion is intentionally? ambiguous on whether the decision regarding copies used to train an LLM applies only to scanned books or also to pirated books. The facts found in the case are the training datasets were made from the "library" copies of books that included scans and pirated downloads. And the court said the training copies were fair use. The court also said the scanned library copies were fair use. The court found that the pirated library copies was not fair use. The court did not say for certain whether the pirated training copies were fair use.
A point of clarifications and some questions.
The portion the court said was bad was not Anthropic getting books from pirated sites to train its model. The court opined that training the model was fair use and did not distinguish between getting the books from pirated sites or hard copy scans. The part the court said was bad, which was settled, was Anthropic getting books from a pirate site to store in a general purpose library.
--
"To summarize the analysis that now follows, the use of the books at issue to train Claude
and its precursors was exceedingly transformative and was a fair use under Section 107 of the
Copyright Act. And, the digitization of the books purchased in print form by Anthropic was.
also a fair use but not for the same reason as applies to the training copies. Instead, it was a
fair use because all Anthropic did was replace the print copies it had purchased for its central
library with more convenient space-saving and searchable digital copies for its central
library — without adding new copies, creating new works, or redistributing existing copies.
However, Anthropic had no entitlement to use pirated copies for its central library. Creating a
permanent, general-purpose library was not itself a fair use excusing Anthropic’s piracy."
"Because the legal issues differ between the *library copies* Anthropic purchased and
pirated, this order takes them in turn."
Questions
As an author do you think it matters where the book was copied from? Presumably, a copyright gives the author the right to control when a text is reproduced and distributed. If the AI company buys a book and scans it, they are reproducing the book without a license, correct? And fair use is the argument that even though they violated the copyright, they are execused. In a pure sense, if the AI company copied (assuming they didn't torrent back the book) from a "pirate source" why is that copy worse then if they copied from a hard book?
The 500,000 number is the number of books that are part of the settlement. If they downloaded all of Libgen and the other sources it was more like >7Million. But it is a lot of work to determine which books can legitimately be part of the lawsuit. For example, if any of the books in the download weren't copyright (think self published) or not protected under US copyright law (maybe a book only published in Venezula) or it isn't clear who own the copyright then that copyright owner cannot be part of the class. So it seems like the 500,000 number is basically the smaller number of books for which the lawyers for the plaintiff felt they could most easily prove standing.
According to the judge, they didn't. The judge said they stored those books in a general purpose library for future use just in case they decided to use them later. It appears the judge took much issue with the downloading of "pirated content." And Anthropic decided to settle rather than let it all play out more.
Anthropic legally purchased the books it used to train its model according to the judge. And the judge said that was fine. Anthropic also downloaded books from a pirate site and the judge said that was bad -- even though the judge also said they didn't use those books for training....
Anthropic literally did exactly this to train its models according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit found that Anthropic didn't even use the pirated books to train its model. So there is that
In a prior ruling, the court stated that Anthropic didn't train on the books subject to this settlement. The record is that Anthropic scanned physical books and used those for training. The pirated books were being held in a general purpose library and were not, according to the record, used in training.
There is a difference between localized inflammation that is bringing the source of healing to injury and systemic inflammation
In California at least there is no law preventing the jury from talking to anyone about the case AFTER the jury returns its decision.
All that build up and not a link to be seen?!?! Where do I go to spend $ on a new hobby I didn't need?
Why didn't I think of that?
I think this is relevant; but does anyone know of any software that is able to tag photos based on quality- like blur, framing, composition. We have too many photos. So many duplicates from the same day. I’ve dreamed of something that would tag or prune based on the best of from any given set of photos. It would turn our library of 80000 random photos into a set of photos I can put on a frame and see the “good ones”.
Also, the sims can introduce error and distance matters (too far away and you won't receive the VORs signal --- mountain in the way, you won't get the signal). Like in a real plane.
Going “on tilt” is when you make emotional decisions because you are chasing the wins or running from the losses.
It is trained on Adobe Stock and supplemented with openly licensed and public domain content.
https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2023/03/21/responsible-inn...
Once you get past your checkride there is virtually zero math involved in flying. I regularly fly in and around the SF Bay Area and I don’t do a single math problem when flying. I would not let that fear stop You. Flying is too awesome.
Everyone in aviation is moving to electronic flight bags. Military, commercial, non-commercial. The US Airforce moved to iPads 10 years ago -- https://www.zdnet.com/article/u-s-air-force-plans-50m-saving...
12 months in the US. And many many foreign jurisdictions will use your publication to block your patent
Pretty sure the office said the arrange of the book was itself protectable but the individual images were not.
https://www.onmanorama.com/news/world/2023/02/23/comic-book-...
I recommend Backuppc for these requirements. Pooling, no sw install required, uses rsync and dedupes across clients and uses client side hashing to avoid sending files already in the pool.
Does the "you only see what you subscribe to" increase the echo chamber of the web. Would it led to "here are more thoughts that you already agree with" which means people won't have a chance to see the other side of a coin?