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

591–600 of 654 posts

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

#591

Post by satvikpendem »

insanitybit wrote: post #585
satvikpendem wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking in an image then creating something new based on the ideas of that image is legally permissible, if you mean that you think AI training produces only derivative works.

I am not sure what you're trying to say. Compressing an image is creating a derived work, it is still subject to the copyright of the original.

What AI is doing is not analogous to compression so even if you think they are they same, it legally and technically speaking is not subject to the copyright of the original.

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

#592

Post by satvikpendem »

delecti wrote: post #556
satvikpendem wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

AI benefits me and many other humans, so it is working to our benefit as intended, per your logic.

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

#593

Post by satvikpendem »

inigyou wrote: post #580
satvikpendem wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I asked why, not what.

why is there a difference between a teapot and an old lady?

I didn't ask why two things are different, I asked what difference does it make, other than just cause? In other words, I don't ask why there is a difference between an apple and an orange (which is nonsensical to ask, just as you have discovered with your question here), I ask why it matters whether I eat an apple or an orange if I'm hungry.

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

#594

Post by satvikpendem »

inigyou wrote: post #582
echoangle wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The game doesn’t but the emulator doesn’t necessarily infringe copyright in itself just because it is based on the original console.

So what does that have to do with a copyright laundering machine?

A copyright laundering machine has no copyright itself and anything it ingests does not need to concern itself with its own copyright because the output has none anyway.

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

#595

Post by smolder »

themgt wrote: post #452
smolder wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, ultimately the problem is that the law is vague or inadequate. The courts have their definitions of fair use, which are their best efforts at interpreting the law, and I have mine, which is different.

William Roper: "So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!" Sir Thomas More: "Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?" William Roper: "Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!" Sir Thomas More: "Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, fro…

That's a cool quote but utterly useless. You have a strong opinion and no argument.

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

#596

Post by embedding-shape »

phire wrote: post #566
embedding-shape wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So it wasn't transformative because of the destruction I mean, the parts of "in order to save storage space" and "The print original was destroyed. One replaced the other." again makes it clear (to me at least) that the destruction is pretty much what sticks out here that makes it "more transformative" (whatever that means) than the previous cited cases. But yeah, agree that also "didn't distribute the scanned copi…

You have a point... Alsop is saying that the destruction somehow made it "more clearly transformative" (which is not quite the same thing as "more transformative"), so it is something that could potentially impact the outcome. I think what he is saving you can't argue the point of the scanning was to save space if you didn't destroy the original. And he concluded that "the mere conversion of a print book to a digital…

> But my point is that you can't assume Anthropic would have lost if they didn't destroy the books. Alsop didn't rule on that, simply because he didn't need to. Judges hate ruling on things they don't need to.

Yeah, I agree with you on this :) It's all guesses essentially, and we cannot know what would have happened in slightly different circumstances, as everyone involved here is human and famously unpredictable :)

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

#598

Post by account42 »

davidguetta wrote: post #343
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…

copyright is bullshit

copyright used against schmucks like you and me but ignored when inconvenient for bigcorp is even more bullshit

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

#599

Post by account42 »

aetherspawn wrote: post #349
davidguetta wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

copyright is bullshit

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…

> Imagine a society without copyright

We don't need to imagine, this is how human society has worked for most of the run we have had.

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

#600

Post by account42 »

freejazz wrote: post #437
Lerc wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I hope you're not implying that post-hoc commercial exploitation via copyright is the only incentive for authors to write. Because we have a whole history worth of evidence to the contrary.
Post reply on HN