If you don’t keep logs, and someone has evidence you did something wrong, then there won’t be any opposing evidence that you were in the right. So the jury will start out siding against you, and you won’t have any way to win them back.
In fact if a judge thinks you didn’t keep logs because you were afraid they would incriminate you, then they will tell the jury to consider the lack of logs as further evidence against you.
This isn’t a prosecution, and nobody is alleging a crime. This is a civil lawsuit.
In a civil lawsuit, the standard of evidence is much different. You do not have to “prove” things beyond a reasonable doubt like in a criminal trial. The jury is instructed to weigh the evidence like a balance, and whichever side has the best evidence wins. Even if it’s only a small difference that only slightly favors one side, they win.
That’s why it’s so important to have evidence that counters whatever the other side claims. You are bound to lose if your opponents are the only ones offering evidence on their side of the balance.
Agree. I believe I acknowledged that in my last sentence.
My point is a frivolous claim is a thing , and someone bringing a claim must suffice a basic level of evidence to even proceed. Indeed, as you say, “judgement” is at a lower final standard in a civil suit.
How does one prove or even make the initial assertion for such a claim?
You can prove it through discovery, ie force the AI developers to reveal all the songs they used to train their AI.
What if it+they didn’t make or retain logs?
Then how can they say they didn’t use the songs in question?
Huh? That would be the point of not keeping logs of the inputs and outputs and any process in between
If you don’t keep logs, and someone has evidence you did something wrong, then there won’t be any opposing evidence that you were in the right. So the jury will start out siding against you, and you won’t have any way to win them back.
In fact if a judge thinks you didn’t keep logs because you were afraid they would incriminate you, then they will tell the jury to consider the lack of logs as further evidence against you.
They don’t have any evidence.
They’re saying it sounds similar.
That’s circumstantial evidence. Which will always beat zero evidence.
Well I’m not defending this, but that isn’t how crimes are prosecuted, thankfully. Prosecution is obligated to prove their case with evidence.
Like, they have to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that you were at the crime scene and committed the act.
Edit Indeed of someone DOES have some sort of evidence you committed the crime and you offer no rebuttal, then you’re hosed
This isn’t a prosecution, and nobody is alleging a crime. This is a civil lawsuit.
In a civil lawsuit, the standard of evidence is much different. You do not have to “prove” things beyond a reasonable doubt like in a criminal trial. The jury is instructed to weigh the evidence like a balance, and whichever side has the best evidence wins. Even if it’s only a small difference that only slightly favors one side, they win.
That’s why it’s so important to have evidence that counters whatever the other side claims. You are bound to lose if your opponents are the only ones offering evidence on their side of the balance.
Agree. I believe I acknowledged that in my last sentence.
My point is a frivolous claim is a thing , and someone bringing a claim must suffice a basic level of evidence to even proceed. Indeed, as you say, “judgement” is at a lower final standard in a civil suit.
I don’t think this is frivolous. If you publish a song that includes part of my song, that’s good evidence that you copied my song.
Well, disagree but that’s fine
I think proving the actual content is present in the song is more challenging, then it gets into the murk of “inspired by/influenced by” etc
In the end, these groups probably did edit literally include the songs in the training set, and are in violation.
Training isn’t copying.
Training starts with storing a copy of training data.
Then using it to train a network. The network doesn’t contain any songs.
But the training data does contain songs, and they need to pay for those.
I wanna see the evidence and the law in this case
This is gonna be interesting af