<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>jmkb</author><text>Eventually, I imagine a new licensing concept will emerge, similar to the idea of music synchronization rights -- maybe call it &amp;quot;training rights.&amp;quot; It won&amp;#x27;t matter whether the text was purchased or pirated -- just like it doesn&amp;#x27;t matter now if an audio track was purchased or pirated, when it&amp;#x27;s mixed into in a movie soundtrack.&lt;p&gt;Talent agencies will negotiate training rights fees in bulk for popular content creators, who will get a small trickle of income from LLM providers, paid by a fee line-itemed into the API cost. Indie creators&amp;#x27; training rights will be violated willy-nilly, as they are now. Large for-profit LLMs suspected or proven as training rights violators will be shamed and&amp;#x2F;or sued. Indie LLMs will go under the radar.</text><parent_chain><item><author>crazygringo</author><text>This is actually quite interesting, as it&amp;#x27;s drawing a distinction between training material that can be accessed by anybody with a web browser (like anybody&amp;#x27;s blog), vs. training material that was &amp;quot;illegally-acquired... available in bulk via torrent systems.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t think there&amp;#x27;s any reason why this would be a relevant legal distinction in terms of &lt;i&gt;distributing&lt;/i&gt; an LLM -- blog authors weren&amp;#x27;t giving consent either.&lt;p&gt;However, I &lt;i&gt;do&lt;/i&gt; wonder if there&amp;#x27;s a legal issue here in using pirated torrents for training. Is there any legal basis for saying fair use permits distributing an LLM trained on copyrighted material, but you have to purchase all the content first to do so legally &lt;i&gt;if it&amp;#x27;s only available for sale&lt;/i&gt;? E.g. training on a blog post is fine because it&amp;#x27;s freely accessible, but Sarah Silverman&amp;#x27;s book is not because it&amp;#x27;s never been made available for free, and you didn&amp;#x27;t pay for it?&lt;p&gt;Or do the courts not really care at all how something is made? If you quote a passage from a book in a freelance article you write, nobody ever asks if you purchased the book or can prove you borrowed it from a library or a friend -- versus if you pirated a digital copy.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement</title><url>https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/9/23788741/sarah-silverman-openai-meta-chatgpt-llama-copyright-infringement-chatbots-artificial-intelligence-ai</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>akira2501</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m allowed to make private copies of copywritten works.  I&amp;#x27;m not allowed to redistribute them.  To what extent this is redistribution is not clear.  Is there much of difference between this model and a machine,  like a VCR,  that recreates the original work when I press a button?</text><parent_chain><item><author>crazygringo</author><text>This is actually quite interesting, as it&amp;#x27;s drawing a distinction between training material that can be accessed by anybody with a web browser (like anybody&amp;#x27;s blog), vs. training material that was &amp;quot;illegally-acquired... available in bulk via torrent systems.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t think there&amp;#x27;s any reason why this would be a relevant legal distinction in terms of &lt;i&gt;distributing&lt;/i&gt; an LLM -- blog authors weren&amp;#x27;t giving consent either.&lt;p&gt;However, I &lt;i&gt;do&lt;/i&gt; wonder if there&amp;#x27;s a legal issue here in using pirated torrents for training. Is there any legal basis for saying fair use permits distributing an LLM trained on copyrighted material, but you have to purchase all the content first to do so legally &lt;i&gt;if it&amp;#x27;s only available for sale&lt;/i&gt;? E.g. training on a blog post is fine because it&amp;#x27;s freely accessible, but Sarah Silverman&amp;#x27;s book is not because it&amp;#x27;s never been made available for free, and you didn&amp;#x27;t pay for it?&lt;p&gt;Or do the courts not really care at all how something is made? If you quote a passage from a book in a freelance article you write, nobody ever asks if you purchased the book or can prove you borrowed it from a library or a friend -- versus if you pirated a digital copy.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Sarah Silverman is suing OpenAI and Meta for copyright infringement</title><url>https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/9/23788741/sarah-silverman-openai-meta-chatgpt-llama-copyright-infringement-chatbots-artificial-intelligence-ai</url></story>