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

431–440 of 654 posts

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

#431

Post by ori_b »

JAlexoid wrote: post #193
ori_b wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you believe information deserves to be free, and if most of your earnings were from information that wasn't given away for free -- well, if you want people to give up their ill gotten gains, maybe you can start by setting an example. So, mind sending me your bank account information? I'll promise to make good use of it.

You seem to think that AI companies sell you content, which is false. You get a service. The service is using their compute power to run a model and their scientists to build the model.

No. I think AI companies consume the result of intellectual work that should typically be paid for. If someone doesn't believe intellectual work should be paid for so that others can benefit, I invite them to lead the way.

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

#432

Post by freejazz »

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.

The settlement does not pertain to any outputs

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

#433

Post by economistbob »

jcelerier wrote: post #425
economistbob wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet countless families, including old folks were ruined during untold numbers of RIAA suits because "converting to save space" is not a permissable use. They used to go around destroying lives by the thousands after Napster was creating because of the invalidity of that argument. It is a crime to make a CD of your MP3s and vice versa, and you cannot convert your VHS to DVD. A billionaire does it at scale, well then s…

it was a crime to run your own unregistered taxi service in many places until uber came and the laws changed to adapt

They did not change the laws. The rich tribe guy ignored them and they let him off just like the Anthropic guy. They did not change the laws. The old businesses just folded and the new ones via unlicensed independent contractors made cottage industries out of small scale fraud and tax evasion.

How many Uber drivers can show their local business license for every town they pick people up in? How many have sales tax accounts for their state? Every uber driver without them should have been charged with the same crime as Al Capone.

Now they are trying to control the knowledge, and the vehicle driving, etc. via AI.

It is frankly a tribe takeover via mass criminal activity.

He should have been charged with tax evasion for every pickup in a place where he lacked a business license, but the tribe would never allow it. Compliance is only for the other guys.

Only the dumb local guy graduating high school trying to earn a living has to worry about legal compliance since the rich guys are too hard to prosecute.

They did not change laws. They refuse to enforce them and we are being taken over by the reincarnated legion of Al Capone as a result.

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

#434

Post by freejazz »

phire wrote: post #293
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

This settlement has basically nothing to do with LLMs. At least not as far as the courts are concerned. Alsup ruled [0] that feeding a book into an LLM is transformative and counts as fair use. Especially when they purchased a physical copy of the book, scanned it, and destroyed the original. But if I'm reading the ruling correctly, Anthropic might have been fine even with feeding pirated books into their LLM (as lon…

>But if I'm reading the ruling correctly, Anthropic might have been fine even with feeding pirated books into their LLM (as long as they planned to eventually deleted them afterwards)

You're not. Even if training is fair use, it doesn't mean you can steal copies to train the model. It just means the training itself isn't an infringement (in Alsup's opinion). Stealing the copies of the books was an infringement and that's exactly the liability that Anthropic settled.

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

#435

Post by freejazz »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #426
smolder wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I'm concerned, the courts are wrong, and training on ill gotten copyrighted material is not fair use. Given the clear value of highly trained LLMs, the investment they have taken on, and the amount of disruption to the existing economy they stand to make, in a just world, the people who created the training data deserve some level of compensation. I think, in the US, they are very afraid of falling behind C…

> As far as I'm concerned, the courts are wrong, and training on ill gotten copyrighted material is not fair use. It’s important to remember that a court’s job is to apply law to a situation. When a court gets something wrong it’s a misinterpretation of the law and will, by definition, be overturnable on appeal. I suspect that your objection isn’t that the court is wrong, it’s that the law is wrong.

It's not a settled area of law and there is a SDNY judge that has a completely different application of the fair use analysis in the same exact context and came to a completely different conclusion (that it is not fair use).

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

#436

Post by freejazz »

roysting wrote: post #391
smolder wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I'm concerned, the courts are wrong, and training on ill gotten copyrighted material is not fair use. Given the clear value of highly trained LLMs, the investment they have taken on, and the amount of disruption to the existing economy they stand to make, in a just world, the people who created the training data deserve some level of compensation. I think, in the US, they are very afraid of falling behind C…

So will you owe life long compensation for all the knowledge you got from books too? How about all the pirated books, music, movies, etc you consumed? When will you set up a life long payment plan to corporations that own these rights, because I have a bridge to sell you if you think any of this settlement will go to any of the people who created anything. I’m guessing you have some kind of imagined idea of some smal…

> So will you owe life long compensation for all the knowledge you got from books too?

You're just falling into the trap of anthropomorphizing the phrase "training" in the context of LLMs, which is not the same things as what humans do. There is no evidence they are the same thing and there is nothing to support the notion that what an LLM does when it "trains" on a book is equivalent to a human reading it.

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

#437

Post by freejazz »

Lerc wrote: post #420
aetherspawn wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright is what stops someone from copy+pasting a book that took years to write, then selling it $1 cheaper than the original author on Amazon or whatever and making a margin 1 million percent higher than the original author. Imagine a society without copyright… only physically intensive jobs could make money because everything else would be pirated, ripped-off or free. Thus, only those who are financially independ…

How many times were hugely popular books rejected before a publisher decided they were worthy? Copyright far more protects the wealthy than the good. They don't need to sell your book, they just need to own the book that people are buying right now. Giving your book a chance to sell would dectract from those sales. If there were no copyright anyone trying to sell the book $1 cheaper would be undercut by someone selli…

Well, there is nothing to distribute if the author is not incentivized to write... which you seemed to skip past.

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

#438

Post by tripzilch »

pj_mukh wrote: post #333
eloisius wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the same reason that you can make a similar-looking chair, but you can’t distribute a fuzzy copy of Star Wars. The char isn’t a copyrighted work.

"The char isn’t a copyrighted work." An Eames chair is, we just have a really high bar for what is copyrightable in the physical world, and it seems pointlessly discriminatory.

Uhuh so it seems that you weren't, in fact, asking a "Real question", but came here for an argument.

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

#439

Post by tripzilch »

echoangle wrote: post #298
Orygin wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You indeed need to pay someone if you take their copyrighted materials and regurgitate it. Ask DJ's and producers how they need to include royalties for samples used in their tracks.

There’s a difference between an abstract idea and the concrete thing. Regurgitating an idea is different than repeating the text verbatim. Ideas are protected by patents, not copyright.

There's also a difference between an MP3 and a FLAC. Again, ask DJs how well they're getting away on that distinction.

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

#440

Post by cowboylowrez »

roysting wrote: post #391
smolder wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I'm concerned, the courts are wrong, and training on ill gotten copyrighted material is not fair use. Given the clear value of highly trained LLMs, the investment they have taken on, and the amount of disruption to the existing economy they stand to make, in a just world, the people who created the training data deserve some level of compensation. I think, in the US, they are very afraid of falling behind C…

So will you owe life long compensation for all the knowledge you got from books too? How about all the pirated books, music, movies, etc you consumed? When will you set up a life long payment plan to corporations that own these rights, because I have a bridge to sell you if you think any of this settlement will go to any of the people who created anything. I’m guessing you have some kind of imagined idea of some smal…

This reliably inevitable rationalization comes up in every thread it seems, and its ultimate goal is to humanize AI. This is what the big guys want us peons to believe and it works so well, I have even been lectured by an AI for being rude, the implication was that I was logged in and it would be a shame if anything happened to my account.

Quit trying to make AIs human, people who are trying to make AI human keep forgetting that humanized AI's have only the morals relevant to their mission, there is no profit in humanizing AI's because if we continue on this track of humanizing AI's, we being stupid humans will grant them civil rights expecting these new AI's with rights will somehow respect our rights and thats a fundamental misunderstanding of how AI'S actually work.

Post reply on HN