51–60 of 654 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dont see the relevance. If Anthropic had bought the book at the store, shredded the spine, scanned the pages and trained on that data instead, there wouldnt have been an issue. Authors cant simply license away fair use. If it could be dismissed so easily the right wouldn't exist.
Creating derivative products you charge for surely can't be considered fair use?
If you have the time, read the judge's response to the motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.43... The big deal for publishers and authors is the payout per eligible title is $3k. For a traditional publishing contract involving one author, the amount will be split down the middle. The other thing which caught my eye is the judge slashed the class counsel's fee by half, from 12.5% ($187.5m)…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dont see the relevance. If Anthropic had bought the book at the store, shredded the spine, scanned the pages and trained on that data instead, there wouldnt have been an issue. Authors cant simply license away fair use. If it could be dismissed so easily the right wouldn't exist.
Creating derivative products you charge for surely can't be considered fair use?
Do you want this to work any other way? I constantly see people in the AI debate working themselves into wildly copyright maximalist positions. I actually don't think that we should give every author veto power over a book review!
So... What about authors from other parts of the world? USA has settled a USA case and they think all is cool for the entire world. So americentric.
Who said that?
$3k a book is so cheap.
Its probably 100x more than it would have cost to do it legitimately, so seems like reasonable damages to me
Is what an AI does similar to a human reading a book, and adding it to their knowledge? Or is it similar to a human plagiarizing a book? If it's the second, for at least some books, no, the damages are not reasonable. They are far too small.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dont see the relevance. If Anthropic had bought the book at the store, shredded the spine, scanned the pages and trained on that data instead, there wouldnt have been an issue. Authors cant simply license away fair use. If it could be dismissed so easily the right wouldn't exist.
Creating derivative products you charge for surely can't be considered fair use?
According to US federal law, pirating a single copyrighted work and gaining commercial advantage of it (which Anthropic 100% did) represents five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. But it gets worse:
"Penalties for a copyright infringement conviction may increase if the defendant has previous similar convictions, made more than 10 copies of copyrighted works, committed copyright infringement during a period longer than 180 days, or infringed copyrighted material worth more than $2,500."
https://www.justia.com/entertainment-law/piracy-in-the-enter...
I sincerely don't understand what the point of these laws are, when the cost of flagrant violations is no more than a slap on the wrist -- these really meager sums that serve as nothing more than something to point at and say "Look, we did something!" Cover-your-ass strategy, and nothing more. Who, besides the ones at fault, are ever happy with these mean-nothing fines? The justice system really needs an overhaul wit…
This is a settlement that the authors and Anthropic agreed upon. They agreed on the amount last year. The judge approved it now. The lawsuit was for the way the books were acquired. They already ruled that it's not infringement to use the books. The award was $3,000 per book, which is about 100X higher than it would have cost to buy the books. It's never going to appease the people who demand companies be sued into c…
The authors or the publishers?
I have a hard time believing they agreed with the millions of authors they pirated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a settlement that the authors and Anthropic agreed upon. They agreed on the amount last year. The judge approved it now. The lawsuit was for the way the books were acquired. They already ruled that it's not infringement to use the books. The award was $3,000 per book, which is about 100X higher than it would have cost to buy the books. It's never going to appease the people who demand companies be sued into c…
100x the books? Buying a book does not let you redistribute its contents. If you are selling more than 100 books you are clearly losing out
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a settlement that the authors and Anthropic agreed upon. They agreed on the amount last year. The judge approved it now. The lawsuit was for the way the books were acquired. They already ruled that it's not infringement to use the books. The award was $3,000 per book, which is about 100X higher than it would have cost to buy the books. It's never going to appease the people who demand companies be sued into c…
> This is a settlement that the authors and Anthropic agreed upon. The authors or the publishers? I have a hard time believing they agreed with the millions of authors they pirated.
If you’re so interested, go read past the headline. Maybe you’ll find that you’re working about what “authors” will agree to.