I thought 1.5 B is the penalty for one torrent, not for a couple million torrents. At least if you're a regular citizen.
A million torrents would cost 1,500 each.
Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors
111–120 of 761 posts
Re: Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors
#112Re: Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't forget: NO LEGAL PRECEDENT! which means, anybody suing has to start all over. You only settle in this scenario/point if you think you'll lose. Edit: I'll get ratio'd for this- but its the exact same thing google did in it's lawsuit with Epic. They delayed while the public and courts focused in apple (oohh, EVIL apple)- apple lost, and google settled at a disadvantage before they had a legal judgment that couldn…
Or, if you think your competition, also caught up in the same quagmire, stands to lose more by battling for longer than you did?
A valid touche! I still think google went with delaying tactics as public and other pressures forced Apple's case forward at greater velocity. (Edit: implicit "and then caved when apple lost"... because they're the same case)
Re: Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors
#114Re: Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors
#115To be very clear on this point - this is not related to model training. It’s important in the fair use assessment to understand that the training itself is fair use, but the pirating of the books is the issue at hand here, and is what Anthropic “whoopsied” into in acquiring the training data. Buying used copies of books, scanning them, and training on it is fine. Rainbows End was prescient in many ways.
> Buying used copies of books
It remains deranged.
Everyone has more than a right to freely have read everything is stored in a library.
(Edit: in fact initially I wrote 'is supposed to' in place of 'has more than a right to' - meaning that "knowledge is there, we made it available: you are supposed to access it, with the fullest encouragement").
Re: Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors
#116Re: Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors
#117Settlement Terms (from the case pdf) 1. A Settlement Fund of at least $1.5 Billion: Anthropic has agreed to pay a minimum of $1.5 billion into a non-reversionary fund for the class members. With an estimated 500,000 copyrighted works in the class, this would amount to an approximate gross payment of $3,000 per work. If the final list of works exceeds 500,000, Anthropic will add $3,000 for each additional work. 2. Des…
So... it would be a lot cheaper to just buy all of the books?
The permission to buy them was already settled by Google Books in the 00's.
Re: Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors
#118To be very clear on this point - this is not related to model training. It’s important in the fair use assessment to understand that the training itself is fair use, but the pirating of the books is the issue at hand here, and is what Anthropic “whoopsied” into in acquiring the training data. Buying used copies of books, scanning them, and training on it is fine. Rainbows End was prescient in many ways.
Paying $3,000 for pirating a ~$30 book seems disproportionate.
Realistically it will be $30 per book and $2,970 for the lawyers
Re: Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors
#119This weirdly seems like its the best mechanism to buy this much data.
Imagine going to 500k publishers to buy it individually. 3k per book is way cheaper. The copyright system is turning into a data marketplace in front of our eyes
Re: Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if 100 companies did it and they all got away. This is to teach a lesson because you cannot prosecute all thieves. Yale Law Journal actually writes about this, the goal is to deter crime because in most cases damages cannot be recovered or the criminal will never be caught in the first place.
If in most cases damages cannot be recovered or the criminal will never be caught in the first place, then what is the lesson being taught? Doesn't that just create a moral hazard where you "randomly" choose who to penalize?
It's about sending a message.