291–300 of 761 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Realistically it will be $30 per book and $2,970 for the lawyers
That's not how class actions work. Ever. In this specific case the settlement caps the lawyer fees at 25%, and even that is subject to the courts approval. In addition they will ask for $250k total ($50k / plaintiff) for the lead plaintiffs, also subject to the courts approval.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The court has to give preliminary approval to the settlement first. After that there should be a notice period during which the lawyers will attempt to reach out and tell you what you need to do to receive your money. (Not a lawyer, not legal advice). You can follow the case here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69058235/bartz-v-anthro... You can see the motion for settlement (what the news article is about) her…
Thank you very much. There seems to be a lot of friction in this seemingly simple process…
The lawyers suing Anthropic here will probably walk away with several hundred million dollars - they have won the lottery.
If they managed to extract twice as much money from Anthropic for the class, they'd walk away with probably twice as much... but winning the lottery twice isn't actually much better than winning the lottery once. Meanwhile $4500 is a lot more than $2250 (the latter is a reasonable estimate of how much you'll get per work after the lawyers cut). Which risks the lawyers settling for less than is in their clients best interests so that they can reliably get rich.
Personally (not a lawyer or anything) I think this settlement seems very fair, and I expect the court will approve it. But there's definitely been plenty of class actions in the past where lawyers really did screw over the class and (try to) settle for less than they should have to avoid risking going to trial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be even more clear - this is a settlement, it does not establish precedent, nor admit wrongdoing. This does not establish that training is fair use, nor that scanning books is fine. That's somebody else's battle.
Right, the settlement doesn't. However, the judge already ruled on the only important piece of this legal proceeding: > Alsup ruled in June that Anthropic made fair use of the authors' work to train Claude...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be even more clear - this is a settlement, it does not establish precedent, nor admit wrongdoing. This does not establish that training is fair use, nor that scanning books is fine. That's somebody else's battle.
Right, the settlement doesn't. However, the judge already ruled on the only important piece of this legal proceeding: > Alsup ruled in June that Anthropic made fair use of the authors' work to train Claude...
Even if the ruling legally remains in place after the settlement, district court rulings are at most persuasive precedent and not binding precedent in future cases, even ones handled by the same court. In the US federal court system, only appellate rulings at either the circuit court of appeals level or the Supreme Court level are binding precedent within their respective jurisdictions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be even more clear - this is a settlement, it does not establish precedent, nor admit wrongdoing. This does not establish that training is fair use, nor that scanning books is fine. That's somebody else's battle.
Right, the settlement doesn't. However, the judge already ruled on the only important piece of this legal proceeding: > Alsup ruled in June that Anthropic made fair use of the authors' work to train Claude...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but that’s mostly because the sheer convenience of the illegal way is so much higher, and carries zero startup cost.
The same could be said of grand larceny. The difference would seem to be a mix of social norms and, more notably for this conversation, very different consequences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair use isn't about how you access the material, its about what you can do with it after you legally access it. If you don't legally access it, the question of fair use is moot.
Hence, "should"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Afaik to scan a book you need to destroy it by cutting the spine so it can feed cleanly into the scanner. Would incur a lot of fines.
They didn't think it would be a good idea to re-bind them and distribute it to the library or someone in need.
I can't help but feel like this is a huge win for Chinese AI. Western companies are going to be limited in the amount of data they can collect and train on, and Chinese (or any foreign AI) is going to have access to much more and much better data.
And if AI companies want recent stuff, they need to pay the owners.
However, the West wants to infinitely enrich the lucky old people and companies who benefited from the lax regulations at the start of 20th century. Their people chose to not let the current generations to acquire equivalent wealth, at least not without the old hags get their cut too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe small compared to the money raised, but it is in fact enormous compared to the money earned. Their revenue was under $1b last year and they projected themselves as likely to make $2b this year. This payout equals their average yearly revenue of the last two years.
I thought they were projecting 10B and said a few months ago they have already grown from a 1B to 4B run rate