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

551–560 of 654 posts

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

#551

Post by WillAdams »

raverbashing wrote: post #531
WillAdams wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edited to clarify APOSD == the book _A Philosophy of Software Design_ Please ask John Ousterhout what his cut of this settlement will be, and whether or no he agreed to it and finds it acceptable.

Yeah ask him how much he gets paid for one copy of the book, I assure you it's not much If he's not getting a cut of this settlement then that's between him and his publisher.

Yes, but what is the calculus of 1 copy of book divided amongst number of copies/usages of LLM which reference said material?

That's the innate disparity and unfairness here --- time was when one made a design which was physically instantiated and replicated, the copies would wear out and one would then earn money again on replacement copies --- this is just another example of the commons and other resources being grabbed by profiteers who use them to make money as opposed for public benefit.

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

#552

Post by roysting »

insanitybit wrote: post #490
skinfaxi wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So will you owe life long compensation for all the knowledge you got from books too? No because we are people and the laws differ for people, corporations, and machines.

I think people forget that laws are perfectly capable of carving out exceptions, leaving purposeful ambiguity, expressing intent, etc. Yes, humans can have special rules, and very obviously should since laws exist to improve human lives.

I am actually not settled on either side of the matter and I have not forgotten that, but I think what we are really looking at is a rather more complex matter than people want to make it out to be. We are holding several but at the very least contradictory positions and they are incompatible.

Either it is theft or not theft. Why would you stealing from me deserve an exception, but when a group of people in an organization you may refer to as a corporation steal from me, you want them to pay me? Do as I say, not as I do or something like that?

Of course exceptions can be carved out, but they cannot be just, inherently. The problem is that we have allowed our ruling maniacs to create a fiction that organizations are people, which not only have more rights, and less responsibilities, and even less consequences/penalties; but also confers upon the individuals that make up the corporate person rather extreme super powers like being able to commit crimes up to outright murder, and there not only are effectively zero consequences for or to them but in most cases today they immensely profit from it and then shield that money from the victims seeking justice.

The underlying issue, why I am not settled on this matter, is that it is inherently contradictory because the facts and underlying assumptions are all so distorted and perverted that there is no good answer to be had and it's really just a matter of rule of power, feigning rule of law.

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

#553

Post by insanitybit »

satvikpendem wrote: post #550
insanitybit wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that relevant? I can use a lossy compression algorithm such that the original could never be recovered from the image I've produced, but that derived image would surely be under copyright. LLMs are obviously capable of producing "exact" phrases as well. Ask it to give you famous quotes, it can do it. Ask it to read a paper for you and cite it, it can do it.

Why would a derived image be under copyright?

Because that's legally the case? I don't understand the question. Using a lossy compression algorithm on an image does not remove its copyright protection.

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

#554

Post by DonsDiscountGas »

ivell wrote: post #341
Zambyte wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The correct way to legislate this is to abolish copyright. It is strictly a negative force. Nobody makes art because of copyright, only in spite of it.

People make art to also get recognized for that art. Otherwise they would keep that art secret at home. Without copyright, anyone can copy the art and call it their own. What is then the incentive for the creator to share the art, if there is neither monetory gain and nor fame. And worse than them being recognized, they might even get accused of copying their own art if someone else became famous due to a copy. Socie…

Many of the most valuable paintings in the world are out of copyright. It has not diminished their value, because people still value originality even if it's not enforced by the law.

> And worse than them being recognized, they might even get accused of copying their own art if someone else became famous due to a copy.

This happens now all the time, and the winner is determined by who can afford the best lawyers.

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

#555

Post by IncreasePosts »

inigyou wrote: post #324
IncreasePosts wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kim built something designed to help everyone pirate stuff. Anthropic pirated specific content.

Kim built something designed to share files. Are you saying Microsoft should go to jail for SMB?

You're confusing a technology for a service.

Any way, the internal emails are available where you can see the executives of megaupload knew exactly what megaupload was being used for, and even used it themselves to pirate content, and went out of their way to allow copyrighted content to remain up after takedown notices were sent.

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

#556

Post by delecti »

satvikpendem wrote: post #476
delecti wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference between humans and LLMs? The difference is that the creators of laws are humans, and the purpose of laws is for humans. Authors write books with the expectation that they will be read by humans, and copyright law was written with unstated assumptions, like the fact that books have an effect on a person's mind after reading it. IMO the spirit of the law would prohibit LLMs from training, and the…

Laws are not only for humans, there are laws for bots as well, like anti spam, but that's besides the point because in reality behind LLMs there are humans and so humans still control them, therefore laws target them too, and now it looks like humans using LLMs to train via ingestion of books is deemed fair use.

I agree that laws don't only apply to humans, but they are only for humans. The legal system is for our benefit.

> therefore laws target them too, and now it looks like humans using LLMs to train via ingestion of books is deemed fair use

Which is orthogonal to my point.

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

#558

Post by oblio »

oblio wrote: post #415
economistbob wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never really understood how libertarians expect to have someone making guns for their fiefdoms when there is no one to enforce property rights for said gun elements and manufactories.

Libertarianism is not a philosophy. It's selfishness taken to extremes and trying to find ways to justify it at a societal level. The only reason we're the top species is because we're ultra social and have culture, which is inherently a social trait (don't eat those red berries, they're poisonous). Libertarianism want all the benefits of working together with no actual thought into how that working together happens…

Surprise: the comment above was downvoted in the bastion of libertarianism :-)

https://youtu.be/lh2__MN-FTU?si=LXIaljh__s8fD75l&t=1568

About 3 minutes of video worth watching.

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

#559

Post by nadermx »

user43928 wrote: post #335
nadermx wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weird, what about this? https://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaa_at_four.pdf

Could you also make the argument here instead of just linking a 25 page PDF?

It's basically many pages refuting parent's comments framing of "It's pretty easy to validate that everything they're saying is accurate." given the PDF opening is:

"On September 8, 2003, the recording industry sued 261 American music fans for sharing songs on peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing networks, kicking off an unprecedented legal campaign against its own customers.1 Four years later, the recording industry has filed, settled, or threatened, legal actions against well over 20,000 individuals.2 "

Which paints a different picture.

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

#560

Post by phire »

themaninthedark wrote: post #405
phire wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not aware of any cases where the RIAA sued people who ripped their own CD/DVDs/VHS for personal use. Their MO was suing owners of internet connections which were seen sharing content on file sharing networks.

Why is scanning a book transformative(a la Google) but reading data off a CD and putting into a digital format not? How is streaming bits of the music from your computer not transformative?

The RIAA (and the wider copyright industry) were careful to never bring a case that might rule on the issue of "ripping data from CDs and converting to digital".

What they did was bring a case against Naspter, which ruled that ripping data off CDs AND THEN sharing it to millions of people over the internet was infringement. Not because of the ripping, but because of the sharing. The RIAA then somehow managed to twist public discourse to interpet the ruling as "ripping CDs is illegal".

They were careful, because the Sony Betamax case had already ruled that recording TV of the airwaves was legal, which is already a weaker case than ripping CDs you own. They knew such a case would likely rule against them, and they found the ambiguity to be much more useful.

And later cases like the google books case, and this Anthropic one provide even more evidence that the courts would likely rule that ripping CDs was legal if such a case was ever bought. (Though, it really depends on what you do with the digital copy)

Post reply on HN