Yes, that's what I'm saying. An LLM washing machine doesn't get rid of the copyright.

> There is little mystery to how large language models function and it's clear that their output is parroting back portions of their training data

If this were true, then you would be able to identify the specific work being "parroted" and you'd have a case for copyright infringement regardless of whether it was produced by an LLM at all. This isn't how LLMs work though. For instance, if an LLM's training data includes the complete works of a given author and then you prompt the LLM to write a story in the style of that author, it will actually write an original story instead of reproducing one of the stories in its training corpus. It won't be particularly good but it will be an original work.

It also isn't obvious whether or not, or to what degree, LLM training works differently from human learning. You yourself acknowledged that there are "many open questions" about how human learning works, so how can you be so confident that it's fundamentally different? It doesn't matter anyway because you can still apply the exact same standards to LLM output to judge whether it infringes copyright that you would to something that was produced by a human being.

Indeed. Copyright was introduced in 1710, Principia was published in 1687.

Well obviously not in general. But when it comes to copyright law specifically, yes absolutely. That is the question I'm asking.

Obviously, on the inside, the process that a person goes through in learning and creating, and the process that a LLM goes through in learning and creating, is very different. Nobody will dispute that.

But if they're learning from the same kinds of materials, and producing the same kind of output, then obviously the comparison can be made. And your idea that LLM's don't create seems obviously false.

So I have to conclude the two seem comparable, and someone would have to show why different legal principles around copyright ought to apply, when it's a simple question of input/output. Why should it matter if it's a human or algorithm doing the processing, from a copyright perspective? Nothing "wacky" about the question at all.

You're right about the TPM, I won't get the key out of it. It's a special ASIC which doesn't even have the silicon gates to give me the key.

But is the TPM doing matrix-mulitiplication at 1.3 Petaflops?

Or are you just sending the encrypted file to the TPM, getting the unencrypted file back from it, which I can intercept, be it on SPI or by gaining higher privileges on the core itself? Just like with this app but down lower?

Whatever core executes the multiplications will be vulnerable by some way or the other, for an motivated attacker which has the proper resources. This is true for every hardware device, but the attack vector of someone jailbreaking a Nintendo Switch by using a electron microscope and a ion-beam miller is neglectable.

If you are that paranoid about AI models being stolen, they are worth it, so some attacker will have enough motivation to power through.

Stealing the private key out of a GPU which allows you steal a lot of valuable AI models is break-once-break-everywhere.

Apple trusted enclave is also just a TPM with other branding, or maybe a HSM dunno.

DMCA 1201 is written so broadly that any feature of a product or service can be construed to prevent copying, and thus gain 1201 protection.

I don't think YouTube intended regular uploads to have DRM, if only because they support Creative Commons metadata on uploads, and Creative Commons specifically forbids the use of technical protection measures on CC-licensed content[0]. On a less moralistic note, applying encryption to all YouTube videos would be prohibitively expensive because DRM vendors charge $$$ for the tech.

But the RIAA wants DRM because, well, they don't want people taking what they have rightfully stolen. So YouTube engineered a weak form of URL obfuscation that would only stop very basic scrapers[1]. DMCA 1201 doesn't care about encryption or obfuscation, though. What it does care about is if something was intended to stop copying, and if so, if the defendant's product was designed to defeat that thing.

There's an interesting wrinkle in DMCA 1201 in that merely being able to defeat DRM does not make something illegal. Defeating DRM has to be the tool's only function[2], or you have to advertise the tool as being able to defeat DRM[3], in order to actually violate DMCA 1201. DRM vendors usually resort to encryption, because it makes the circumvention tools specialized enough that they have no other purpose and thus fall afoul of DMCA 1201. But there's nothing stopping you from using really basic schemes (ROT-13 your DVDs!) and still getting to sue for 1201.

Going back to the AI ripping question, this blog post is probably not in and of itself a circumvention tool[4], but anyone implementing it is very much making circumvention tools, which are illegal to distribute. Circumvention itself is also illegal, but only when there's an underlying copyright infringement. i.e. you can't just encrypt something that's public domain or uncopyrightable and sue anyone who decrypts it.

So the next question is: is AI copyrightable? And can you sue for 1201 circumvention for something that is fundamentally composed of someone else's copyrighted work that you don't own and haven't licensed?

[0] Additionally, there is a very large repository of CC-BY music from Kevin MacLeod that is used all over YouTube that would have to be removed or relicensed if the RIAA were to prevail on this case.

I have no idea if Kevin actually intends to enforce the no-DRM clause in this way, though. Kevin actually has a fairly loose interpretation of CC-BY. For example, nobody attributes his music correctly, either the way the license requires, or with Kevin's (legally insufficient) recommended attribution strings. He does sell commercial (non-attribution) licenses but I've yet to hear of any enforcement actions from him.

[1] To be clear, without DRM encryption, any video can be ripped by hooking standard HTML5 video APIs using an extension.

[2] Things with "limited commercial purposes" beyond breaking DRM may also be construed as circumvention tools under DMCA 1201.

[3] My favorite example: someone tried selling a VGA-to-composite adapter as a way to copy movies off Netflix. That is illegal under DMCA 1201.

[4] To be clear, this is NOT settled law, this is "get sued and find out if the Supreme Court likes you that day" law.

Not really. The fair use status of time shifting isn't in question there by either party.

I share the sentiment of the person you're responding to, and I didn't understand your response, that's it.

Right, that’s what I was getting at with my parenthetical. Obviously the work has to have an owned copyright in order to be protected by copyright law.

I agree it's a big mess, that was kind of my point.

I am curious about the video, but am not compelled to spend 24 min watching it when you haven't summarized its thesis for me. The title of the video makes it seem adjacent at best to the points I was making. (Some automated flagging system =/= actual law)

> Another weird carve-out for copyright law in the US: parody. Honestly, I don't know if other jurisdictions allow parody in the same protected manner.

Germany: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__51a.html (Though this explicit carve-out is a recent development, though generally speaking parodies were allowed even under the previous version of the law.)

Er, what? I'm speaking directly from the law, 17 U.S.C. § 107. It's deliberately written in terms of "factors to consider", rather than absolutes.

> In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

> * the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

> * the nature of the copyrighted work;

> * the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

> * the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Basically any YouTube video that shows another YouTube video, song, movie, etc. as part of something else (eg a voiceover.)

> If the resulting AI models are protected by copyright that invalidates the claim that AI models being trained on copyrighted materials is fair-use analogous to human beings becoming educated by exposure to copyrighted materials.

No one training (foundation) models makes that fair use argument by analogy, they make arguments that addresses the specific statutory and case law criteria for fair use (abd frequently focus on the transformative character of the use); its true that the analogy to a learning human argument is frequently made in internet fora by AI enthusiasts who aren't the people training models on vaat scraped datasets. That argument is bunk for a number of reasons, but most critically the fact that a human learning from material isn’t fair use, because a human brain isn’t treated as a fixed medium, so learning in a human brain isn’t legally a copy or derivative work that would violate copyright without the fair use exception, so it's not a use to which fair use analysis even applies, so you can't argue anything is fair use by analogy to that. But its moot to any argument for hypocrisy by the big model makers, because they aren’t using that argument to start with.

If I take 1000 books and count the distributions of the lengths of the words, and the covariance between the lengths of one word and the next word for each book, and how much this covariance matrix tends to vary across the different books, and other things like this, and publish these summaries, it seems fairly clear to me that this should count as fair use.

(Such a model/statistical-summary, along with a dictionary, could be used to generate nonsensical texts which have similar patterns in terms of just word lengths.)

Should the resulting work be protected by copyright? I’m not entirely sure…

I guess one thing is, the specific numbers I obtain by doing this are not a consequence of any creative decision making on my part, which I think in some jurisdictions (I don’t remember which) plays a role in whether a work is copyrightable (I will use “copyrightable” as an abbreviation for “protected by copyright”. I don’t mean to imply a requirement that someone specifically registers for copyright.). (Iirc this makes it so phone books are copyrightable in some jurisdictions but not others?)

The particular choice of statistical analysis does seem like it may involve creative decision making, but that would just be about like, what analysis I describe, and how the numbers I publish are to be interpreted, not what the numbers are? (Analogous to the source code of an ML model, not the parameters.)

Here is another question: suppose there is a method of producing a data artifact which would be genuinely (and economically) useful, and which does not rely on taking in any copyrighted input, but requires a large (expensive) amount of compute to produce, and which also uses a lot of randomness so that the result would be different each time it was done (but suppose also that there isn’t much point doing it multiple times at the same scale, as having two of this kind of data artifact wouldn’t be much more valuable than having one).

Should such data artifacts be protected by copyright or something like it?

Well, if copyright requires creative human decision making, then they wouldn’t be.

It seems like it would make sense to want it to be economically incentivized to create such data artifacts of higher sizes (to a point of course. Only as much as is justified by the value that is produced by them being available.) .

If such data artifacts can always be distributed without restriction, then ones that are publicly available would be public goods, and I guess only ones that are trade secrets would be private goods? It seems to me like having some mechanism to incentivize their creation and being-eventually-freely-distributed would be beneficial?

But maybe copyright isn’t the best way to do that? Idk.

> The model weights are the result of an automated process, by definition, and thus not protected by copyright.

Object code is the result of an automated process and is covered by the copyright on the source code.

Compilations are covered by copyright separate from that of the individual works, and it is arguable that a training set would be covered by a compilation copyright, and the result of applying an automated training processs to it would remain covered by that copyright.

Isn’t this comment in the public domain? I presume that’s what I’m doing when I’m posting on a forum. If somebody copied and pasted something I wrote on here could I in theory use copyright law to restrict distribution? I think the law would say I published it on a public forum and thus it is in the public domain.

Chattel, as I'm using it is in reference to the usage in distinguishing an "ownable piece of property" from an employee".

Namely, a magic, technologically reproducible box that can be applied almost as effectively as a human hireling, but isn't a human hireling is near infinitely more desirable in a capitalist system since the blackbox is chattel, the hired human is not. The chattel has no natural rights, no claim to self sovereignty, and is an asset that is legally extant by virtue of the fact it is owned by the owner.

Chattel that are flexible enough to replace the legal burdens incurred by hiring a human to do the same job, will naturally be converged upon due to the capitalistic optimation function of minimizing unit input cost for output over dollars and potential dollars as expressed through legal exposure.

Imagine you had two human like populations. One made of plastic that aren't considered humans but property. I.e. are chattel. Then you have a bunch of people with all the baggage that comes with it.

Hiring people/employing people is hard. Particularly in the U.S. and other jurisdictions where a great deal of responsibility for actually implementing regulations/ taxation/immigration and such is tacked onto being an employer/being able to hire.

As the gap between the capability of the chattel population closes in on the human population, the more economic and workload sense it makes for the system to improve the chattel population under our current optimization strategy, (given no pre-emptive work to cut off externality dumping). Humans are messy and complicated to work with. Often unpredictable. Chattel are easy to account for; especially when combined with "technical restraints". You have to fundamentally engage in negotiation with another human being to get them on board with working for you. You buy the chattel, and that's that. The chattel has no grounds to refuse service. Socially speaking, we don't even recognize it's outputs as carrying any social weight, or resistance as anything but malfunctions.

Economics is the science around using access to resources as a means to get other people to work with you. Being chattel means you can cut out entirely all that complexity. You are resource. Not people.

Unironically, we need to have an answer to whether or not we are going to consider a sufficiently complex function imitator as something that requires a classification above "chattel" or controls around how we apply it in order to not self-destruct the economic equilibria in which we purport to exist. Because all it takes is removing or sufficiently obstructing the flow of value down from individuals who accrete the most of these wunder-chattel to render things so top heavy, most of the constraints/invariants of our socioeconomic systems as we know them become invalidated.

That does not bode well for anyone.

    > The point of copyright is to protect an exclusive right to copy, not the right to produce original works influenced by previous works.

As I understand, the definition of "the right to produce original works influenced by previous works" has been a slowly moving target in my lifetime. Think about the effects of the album Paul's Boutique by Beastie Boys. They went wild with sampling and paid very little (zero?) to license those samples. Then, there were a bunch of court cases in the US that decided that future samplers needed to license the samples from the original authors. However, the ability to create legal, derivative works is usually carefully defined in copyright law. Can you comment on this matter vis-a-via LLMs?

    > If an LLM produces original works that are influenced by the training data, that is not a violation of copyright.

I'm pretty sure if an LLM creates Paul's Boutique 2.0 in 2025 using incredible number of samples, then someone cannot sell it (or use it in a YouTube video) without first licensing those samples. I doubt very much someone could just "hide behind" an LLM and claim, "Oh, it is original, but derivative, work, created by an LLM." I doubt courts would allow that.

i weirdly agree with you, but also want to point out that “influenced by the training data” is doing some very heavy lifting there.

exactly how the new work is created is important when it comes to derivative works.

does it use a copy of the original work to create it, or a vague idea/memory of the original work’s composition?

when i make music it’s usually vague memories. i’d argue that LLMs have an encoded representation of the original work in their weights (along with all the other stuff).

but that’s the legal grey area bit. is the “mush” of model weights an encoded representation of works, or vague memories?

Also, even if an LLM generates an original work, the weights it used may still be a derived work.

From what I recall, it was the actual protection method that was protected by DMCA - when DVD protection was cracked it was forbidden to distribute a particular section of code so they just printed it on a Tee-shirt to troll the powers that be.

As far as I’m concerned you are a black box. Just as I’m a black box from your perspective. In principle I could come over and vivisect your brain if you’d like, but I doubt you’d be interested, and I wouldn’t really want to incur the legal liability even if you were.

Besides, “black box” just means that your internal mental life and cognitive mechanism is opaque to me. It’s not like I’m calling you a p-zombie.