Hi Aigars, At 2025-05-04T14:27:46+0200, Aigars Mahinovs wrote: > The simple fact that none of the LLMs have been sued out of existence > by *any *copyright owner is de facto proof that it does not work that > way in the eyes of the judicial system. I think that's a hasty conclusion. Civil procedure is slow; lawsuits can take several years to get started, and, in common law jurisdictions like the U.S., the principle of laches (an analogue to the statue of limitations for criminal procedure) can be foreclosed by all sorts of non-public activities, like corporate attorneys jousting with each other via private communications. This can go on for a long, long time, and one's standing as a civil plaintiff can be preserved by such efforts. Further, one doesn't sue the LLMs themselves--a model can't be a party to a lawsuit--or even necessarily the party that constructs one, but the party that "monetizes" the result. That latter for two good reasons: (1) the monetizer would likely be the party that engaged in copyright infringement--_if_ that concept applies--because they're the ones engaging in public commerce and thus "distribution" of copyrighted materials, and (2) the monetizer is likely to be party among all of those involved with LLM construction that has the deepest pockets, and money damages are the substrate language of most civil procedure. You _might_ be right, and the more time that passes without a big lawsuit hitting the newspapers, the more likely you are. But I think the hour is still young in this matter. Not really relatedly, I wonder how the SFC v. Vizio case[1] is going... Regards, Branden [1] https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature