... in one economy and for specific authors and publishers. But the offence is global in impact on authors worldwide, and the consequences for other IPR laws remains to be seen.
Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors
171–180 of 761 posts
Re: Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah but did he die before anybody actually knew about it?
Is lib still around anymore. I can't find any functioning urls
Anna's Archive includes all of libgen and a lot more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna%27s_Archive
Re: Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors
#173To 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, scanning them, and training on it is fine. Buying used copies of books, scanning them, and printing them and selling them: not fair use Buying used copies of books, scanning them, and making merchandise and selling it: not fair use The idea that training models is considered fair use just because you bought the work is naive. Fair use is not a law to leave open usage as long as it doesn…
Buying used copies of books, scanning them, training an employee with the scans: fair use.
Unless legislation changes, model training is pretty much analogous to that. Now of course if the employee in question - or the LLM - regurgitates a copyrighted piece verbatim, that is a violation and would be treated accordingly in either case.
Re: Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
Printing press, audio recording, movies, radio, television were also transformative. Did not get rid of copyright or actually brought them. I feel it is insane that authors do not receive some sort of standard compensation for each training use. Say a few hundred to a few thousand depending on complexity of their work.
Why would they earn more from models reading their works than I would pay to read it?
Because ones doing the training are profiting from it. Ai is not a human with limited time. And it is also owned by a company not a legal person.
I might find argument of comparing it to human when it is fully legal person and cutting power to it or deleting is treated as murder. Before that it is just bullshit.
And fundamentally reason for copy right to exist is to support creators and to promote them to create more. In world where massively funded companies can freely exploit their work and even in many case fully substitute that principle is failed.
Re: Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors
#175To 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, scanning them, and training on it is fine. Buying used copies of books, scanning them, and printing them and selling them: not fair use Buying used copies of books, scanning them, and making merchandise and selling it: not fair use The idea that training models is considered fair use just because you bought the work is naive. Fair use is not a law to leave open usage as long as it doesn…
It fits the basicmost fair use: reading them. Current "training" can be considered as a gross form of reading.
Re: Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
Few. This settlement potentially weakens all challenges to the use of copyrighted works in training LLM's. I'd be shocked if behind closed doors there wasn't some give and take on the matter between Executives/investors. A settlement means the claimants no longer have a claim, which means if they're also part of- say, the New York Times affiliated lawsuit- they have to withdraw. A neat way of kneecapping a country wi…
That's not even remotely true. Page 4 of the settlement describes released claims which only relate to the pirating of books. Again, the amount of misinformation and misunderstanding I see in copyright related threads here ASTOUNDS.
Did you miss the "also" how about "adjacent"? I won't pretend to understand the legal minutia, but reading the settlement doesn't mean you do either.
In my experience&training in a fintech corp- Accepting a settlement in any suit weakens your defense- but prevents a judgement and future claims for the same claims from the same claimants (a la double jeopardy). So, again- at minimum- this prevents an actual judgement. Which, likely would be positive for the NYT (and adjacent) cases.
Re: Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors
#177As a published author who had works in the training data, can I take my settlement payout in the form of Claude Code API credits? TBH I'm just going to plow all that money back into Anthropic... might was well cut out the middleman.
I wonder if Antrhopic's lawyers have enough of a sense of humor to take you up on that if you sent them an email asking...
Re: Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Chopping the spine off books and putting the pages in an automated scanner is not scalable. That's how Google Books, the Internet Archive, and Amazon (their book preview feature) operated before ebooks were common. It's not scalable-in-a-garage but perfectly scalable for a commercial operation.
We hem and haw about metaphorical "book burning" so much we forget that books themselves are not actually precious. The books that are destroyed in scanning are a small minority compared to the millions discarded by libraries every year for simply being too old or unpopular.
>we forget that books themselves are not actually precious.
Book burnings are symbolic (Unless you're in the world of Fareinheit 451). The real power comes from the political threat, not the fact that paper with words on them is now unreadable.
Re: Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors
#179To 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, scanning them, and training on it is fine. Buying used copies of books, scanning them, and printing them and selling them: not fair use Buying used copies of books, scanning them, and making merchandise and selling it: not fair use The idea that training models is considered fair use just because you bought the work is naive. Fair use is not a law to leave open usage as long as it doesn…
The purpose and character of AI models is transformative, and the effect of the model on the copyrighted works used in the model is largely negligible. That's what makes the use of copyrighted works in creating them fair use.
Re: Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh?
I think he implies that because one can borrow hypothetically any book for free from a library, one could use them for legal training purposes, so the requirement of having your own copy should be moot
Libraries aren’t just anarchist free for alls they are operating under licensing terms. Google had a big squabble with the university of Illinois Urbana Champaign research library before finally getting permission to scan the books there. Guess what, Google has the full text but books.google.com only shows previews, why is an exercise to the reader literally