Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors

Post by kingforaday » Sat, Sep 06, 2025, 12:15 AM UTC

ReFruity wrote: post #246

rchaud wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Buying used copies of books, scanning them, and training on it is fine. But nobody was ever going to that, not when there are billions in VC dollars at stake for whoever moves fastest. Everybody will simply risk the fine, which tends to not be anywhere close to enough to have a deterrent effect in the future. That is like saying Uber would have not had any problems if they just entered into a licensing contract wit…

> But nobody was ever going to that If this is a choice between risking to pay 1.5 billion or just paying 15 mil safely, they might.

Post by chrisvenum » Sat, Sep 06, 2025, 12:17 AM UTC

dude250711 wrote: post #209

gpm wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, much. And they actually went and did that afterwards. They just pirated them first.

What is the HN term for this? "Bootstrapping" your start up? Or is it "growth-hacking" it?

Post by kevin_thibedeau » Sat, Sep 06, 2025, 12:18 AM UTC

rchaud wrote: post #228

aeon_ai wrote: post #8

To 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. But nobody was ever going to that, not when there are billions in VC dollars at stake for whoever moves fastest. Everybody will simply risk the fine, which tends to not be anywhere close to enough to have a deterrent effect in the future. That is like saying Uber would have not had any problems if they just entered into a licensing contract wit…

Post by jayd16 » Sat, Sep 06, 2025, 12:23 AM UTC

rchaud wrote: post #228

aeon_ai wrote: post #8

To 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. But nobody was ever going to that, not when there are billions in VC dollars at stake for whoever moves fastest. Everybody will simply risk the fine, which tends to not be anywhere close to enough to have a deterrent effect in the future. That is like saying Uber would have not had any problems if they just entered into a licensing contract wit…

Post by utyop22 » Sat, Sep 06, 2025, 12:25 AM UTC

danans wrote: post #208

jongjong wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that how the whole system operates? Everyone is a conduit to allow rich people to enrich themselves further. The amount and quality of opportunities any individual receives are proportional to how well it serves existing capital. So long as there is an excuse to justify money flows, that's fine, big capital doesn't really care about the excuse; so long as the excuse is just persuasive enough to satisfy the regu…

> Isn't that how the whole system operates? Everyone is a conduit to allow rich people to enrich themselves further. The amount and quality of opportunities any individual receives are proportional to how well it serves existing capital. Yes, and FWIW that's very succinctly stated.