Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge approves $1.5B Anthropic settlement for pirated books used to train Claude

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 654 posts

Re: Judge approves $1.5B Anthropic settlement for pirated books used to train Claude

#281

Post by 21asdffdsa12 »

visarga wrote: post #265
sashank_1509 wrote: post #200

A one time payment like 1.5B doesn’t do anything. There needs to be a royalty payment based on if the AI regurgitates existing ideas. That is probably the correct way to legislate this. If anything a human does can instantly be copied by an LLM, and then sent to all its subscribers, things need to change

> There needs to be a royalty payment based on if the AI regurgitates existing ideas. So, by that logic, you need to be paying every time you regurgitate any of my ideas. Or anyone else's. Copyright now protects abstractions and vibes. Substantial similarity test be damned. Nobody can write stories about wizard schools, the idea is taken.

Every morning we pay royalties to prometheus for we all are toast.

Re: Judge approves $1.5B Anthropic settlement for pirated books used to train Claude

#282

Post by runroader »

visarga wrote: post #265
sashank_1509 wrote: post #200

A one time payment like 1.5B doesn’t do anything. There needs to be a royalty payment based on if the AI regurgitates existing ideas. That is probably the correct way to legislate this. If anything a human does can instantly be copied by an LLM, and then sent to all its subscribers, things need to change

> There needs to be a royalty payment based on if the AI regurgitates existing ideas. So, by that logic, you need to be paying every time you regurgitate any of my ideas. Or anyone else's. Copyright now protects abstractions and vibes. Substantial similarity test be damned. Nobody can write stories about wizard schools, the idea is taken.

Humans are not computers. Humans are not a service. In the end, all laws are made up rules and can absolutely be written to have different outcomes and restrictions based on if a human is doing something or if a program is doing it.

Re: Judge approves $1.5B Anthropic settlement for pirated books used to train Claude

#283

Post by abuhl98 »

protocolture wrote: post #119
abuhl98 wrote: post #105

It is wild to see a $1.5 billion resolution in the AI copyright space—especially with around $3,000 per book going directly to affected authors.

1500 to the author, 1500 to the publisher.

I didn't catch that part.

Re: Judge approves $1.5B Anthropic settlement for pirated books used to train Claude

#285

Post by pixlmint »

sashank_1509 wrote: post #200

A one time payment like 1.5B doesn’t do anything. There needs to be a royalty payment based on if the AI regurgitates existing ideas. That is probably the correct way to legislate this. If anything a human does can instantly be copied by an LLM, and then sent to all its subscribers, things need to change

if they had any intention of doing things "the right way", they would have gone to every publisher individually and asked for a proper license.

Re: Judge approves $1.5B Anthropic settlement for pirated books used to train Claude

#286

Post by pishpash »

shakna wrote: post #226
sdenton4 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, ever used a thing you learned from a textbook in your job? Did you have to continue paying for the copy of that knowledge speed on your brain? No, because that's not what copyright is about. Learning from and building on previous work is civilization. Copyright maximalism is a plague.

Well, as not every book is a textbook, I'd say quite a lot of what I've read never went to any kind of knowledge in my head at all. But I reckon the author still deserves to eat.

Does buying the book not count? Why in perpetuity? Even patents expire after 17 years.

Re: Judge approves $1.5B Anthropic settlement for pirated books used to train Claude

#287

Post by Lutger »

calgoo wrote: post #221
sdenton4 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, ever used a thing you learned from a textbook in your job? Did you have to continue paying for the copy of that knowledge speed on your brain? No, because that's not what copyright is about. Learning from and building on previous work is civilization. Copyright maximalism is a plague.

Yes but does the computer actually learn? Is the computer a person that read a book and remembered, a part and used that to create a novel idea or is it just cioy pasting the answer and then reselling that

A computer not, but a LLM model does learn. The original text in no way exists 'in the model', and the model does not copy-paste it and resell the original text. Not the same, but reasonably similar to a human.

We may need some new legislation. An LLM is not a person, but its also not just a storage solution.

Re: Judge approves $1.5B Anthropic settlement for pirated books used to train Claude

#288

Post by pishpash »

gspr wrote: post #225
sdenton4 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno, ever used a thing you learned from a textbook in your job? Did you have to continue paying for the copy of that knowledge speed on your brain? No, because that's not what copyright is about. Learning from and building on previous work is civilization. Copyright maximalism is a plague.

> I dunno, ever used a thing you learned from a textbook in your job? Did you have to continue paying for the copy of that knowledge speed on your brain? They are, presumably, human. We can perfectly well say that humans have certain rights without needing to give machines those same rights. For example, we've more or less all agreed that it's fine for a human to watch a movie and enjoy the memories forever, and be i…

If you buy the movie you most definitely have a copy that some machine made and you can keep it forever.

Re: Judge approves $1.5B Anthropic settlement for pirated books used to train Claude

#289

Post by pishpash »

gspr wrote: post #231
simianwords wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do they need prior consent? What sort of rent seeking do you want?

Are you saying that if someone writes a book or records a song, anyone should be able to use it for anything forever without consent? How does intellectual work get funded in this insane world if yours, pray tell?

Lots of ways. Selling author signings, talks, authorized copies, subscriptions/merch, sponsorships. How do newfangled "content creators" fund their work? We already live in this world.

Maybe not all creative works are deserving of monopoly profits just by sitting on the ass in any case, and should stand on their own merits by producing downstream value that can be sold for whatever they can be sold for, by whoever puts in the work to deliver the value to the end user in a competitive manner. You know, open markets.

Attribution I can see. Consent or payment beyond market value, why? Just because you put in a billion hours to make a shitty $1 value output I should pay you a billion hours worth of labor?

Re: Judge approves $1.5B Anthropic settlement for pirated books used to train Claude

#290

Post by chrisjj »

visarga wrote: post #268
spectre23 wrote: post #266

$3000/book for effectively pirating a book is shamefully low.

What do you mean pirating? They don't even distribute the originals, LLMs are not for replication, we already have copying and internet for that. Why would we use a multi-billion parameter model to copy text? If we wanted the originals it would be easier to find them free, pirate or pay, if we use LLMs it is because we want something ELSE. And caring about content rights in a world with limitless content and scarce a…

> Why would we use a multi-billion parameter model to copy text?

Because it is free and essy to use? The number of numbers under the hood is irrelevent.

Post reply on HN