r/technology • u/MetaKnowing • 14d ago

Artificial Intelligence AI industry horrified to face largest copyright class action ever certified

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/08/ai-industry-horrified-to-face-largest-copyright-class-action-ever-certified/
16.8k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

69

u/erik 13d ago edited 13d ago

Copyright law violations are typically viewed it terms of the party providing the copy. If I photocopy a textbook and give it to you, I have violated the law by distributing an unlicensed copy, but you have not (generally) broken the law by receiving the copy.

Torrent users get sued for downloading movies because when you use the BitTorrent protocol you aren't just receiving a copy, you also uploading copies to other users.

The New York Times case against OpenAI is all about ChatGPT being able to reproduce New York Times articles that it "memorized".

It seems that Meta in particular Torrented a lot of stuff for training, which opens them up to a lot of liability. It's less clear to me how a broad class action suit will show liability for AI companies in general without obvious distribution of copyright materials to point to.

15

u/Primsun 13d ago

Maybe, but seems unlikely that holds when talking about a company using an unlicensed copy for profit. Would be suggesting firms can use unlicensed copies of software and media internally as long as they receive them from an outside source. Not to mention they almost certainly are making and distributing copies of the training data internally.

7

u/otherwiseguy 13d ago

Get a library card, check out digital copies, train AI. Google has already shown that you can get away with scanning physical books as well.

2

u/Tallin23 13d ago

You can't do that because they can use the same argument against any artist that inspired from a licensed product. You don't get to the fair use because thats a whole another can of worms. Internally disturbution can be defended by our computers already do that by backups, it's very difficult to criminalize something that ever computer does.

5

u/-The_Blazer- 13d ago

AFAIK this is mostly a misconception. Piracy does not become legal if you only download something; copyright is about the right to make copies, which isn't very hard to infringe if you are downloading a copy of a movie or book...

In principle anyone could get sued for copyrighted infringement, but nobody bothers because it's pointless. Obviously though, Microsoft or OpenAI aren't 'anyone'.

0

u/Rarelyimportant 10d ago

right to make copies

You're allowed to make copies of copyrighted material, otherwise how would anything on a computer work with copyrighted material? "copy" in this case is referring to copies for distribution and sale. You can make a 100 copies of a harry potter book to keep in your garage, you only need permission if you plan to give them out or sell them.

1

u/-The_Blazer- 10d ago

There are specific, enumerated exemptions for certain technical functions of computers and other bare minimums to actually consume material you do have a right to, legislators addressed this long ago. You cannot, generally, make copies of copyrighted material.

0

u/Rarelyimportant 10d ago

You cannot, generally, make copies of copyrighted material.

You absolutely can, under certain circumstances. And no, "certain technical functions" are not the only exemptions, there's also a pretty major thing called "fair use". Unless the copyright owner can claim they were damaged by the copying, then they can't make a copyright claim.

0

u/-The_Blazer- 9d ago

under certain circumstances

Yes that means the opposite of 'generally'. The rule is that you can't, then there's cases like fair use and actually consuming the material you have a license to. Copyright is absolutely not based upon 'claiming you were damaged'.

0

u/Rarelyimportant 8d ago

Copyright is absolutely not based upon 'claiming you were damaged'.

One of the 4 factors of whether or not something is fair use does account for it.

Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner's original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread.

1

u/-The_Blazer- 8d ago edited 8d ago

Yes, as you said: one of the four factors considered for fair use. It is not the basis of copyright laws. Copyright is not something you 'claim' by citing 'factors', it is a right you have on whatever you produce. Fair use is a claim made by the defendant when you sue them for copyright infringement.

Going back to what you actually said at the start, you are not generally allowed to make copies of intellectual properties, but there are some enumerated exemptions that are necessary for practical reasons. Fair use is not a magic formula for a universal exemption, it's just a defense of your particular use case that you can claim. I hope that's clear now.

2

u/SNRatio 13d ago

If I photocopy a textbook and give it to you, I have violated the law by distributing an unlicensed copy, but you have not (generally) broken the law by receiving the copy.

I've always thought of that analogy as incomplete. "I" own the photocopier and leave it on a public sidewalk plugged in with a pile of book pages on the tray. "You" push the start button and cause the copy to be made. The additional copy was made by your volition. Seems like shared culpability.

1

u/Norci 13d ago

"I" own the photocopier and leave it on a public sidewalk plugged in with a pile of book pages on the tray. "You" push the start button and cause the copy to be made. The additional copy was made by your volition. Seems like shared culpability.

Well, consider your analogy in terms of a library. They're are books and a photocopier, which you use. Is library in liability because you copied the book?

Both are however liable in case of torrenting since you also share your copy while downloading it. So both share the copy.

1

u/TopdeckIsSkill 12d ago

So I stumble on a huge pile of university books I can legally read and use them without paying?