Edit: I respect your position to not engage. We can just do things regardless of those who would disagree (which is good imho when the risk of harm is low and the benefit potentially high), in this case while still adhering to the law as set forth by a court. The judicial interpretation guides that you can train if you own a copy of the work; build accordingly.

When Search Engine Services meet Large Language Models: Visions and Challenges - https://arxiv.org/html/2407.00128v1

[section removed; refer to harshreality's context in sibling comment, which is more thorough than what I had commented]

As a reasonable person who believes one should be reasonable until they can no longer be reasonable, as a hacker, this is a green light to be unreasonable as it relates to onerous copyright regulations infringing on the commons. Copyright stakeholders took too much from the commons, and this enables people to take back (with a combination of judicial review and technology).

https://www.library.upenn.edu/news/hachette-v-internet-archi...

https://blog.archive.org/tag/controlled-digital-lending/

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

1. Almost all physical libraries, including at universities, had shut down, and IA's efforts were to compensate for that. Supply of previously-purchased-for-public-use books had dried up overnight.

2. Normal 1:1 lending was not observed, but DRM was still applied. No books lent during that period were usable outside of a narrow window, without the end user intentionally circumventing the DRM which is a distinct crime and isn't trivial for the average computer user.

3. IA entered into dialogue with major academic publishers before implementing the emergency library. They published an opt-out address on their blog. That wasn't as visible to all publishers or independent authors as it probably should have been, but everyone knows if it had been opt-in instead, authors and publishers all would have reflexively refused, despite the unique situation. Mainstream publishers and most authors simply do not care if people can't access library books for a month or two. They would ban libraries if they could. They're so high on their intellectual property rights they think those can't be relaxed no matter what.

4. As far as I know, all NEL books were scanned PDFs, from donated library book collections. Casual readers don't read scanned books for entertainment. The idea that this significantly displaced kindle purchases, for instance, or lending of real ebooks from local libraries, needs a citation.

There's plenty of additional background here: https://blog.archive.org/national-emergency-library/