Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 686 posts

Re: Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge

#301

Post by armada651 »

JimDabell wrote: post #177
bgwalter wrote: post #119

Here is how individuals are treated for massive copyright infringement: https://investors.autodesk.com/news-releases/news-release-de...

> illegally copying and selling pirated software This is very different to what Anthropic did. Nobody was buying copies of books from Anthropic instead of the copyright holder.

I wouldn't be so sure about that statement, no one has ruled on the output of Anthropic's AI yet. If their AI spits out the original copy of the book then it is practically the same as buying a book from them instead of the copyright holder.

We've only dealt with the fairly straight-forward legal questions so far. This legal battle is still far from being settled.

Re: Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge

#302

Post by badlibrarian »

jimnotgym wrote: post #281

Hang on, it is OK under copyright law to scan a book I bought second hand, destroy the hard copy and keep the scan in my online library? That doesn't seem to chime with the copyright notices I have read in books.

First sale doctrine gives the person who sold the book you bought the right to sell it to you. Fair Use permits you to scan your copy, used or new. It's your book, you can destroy it. But you have to delete your digital copy if you sell it or give it away. And you can't distribute your digital copy.

Re: Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge

#303

Post by CaptainFever »

pyman wrote: post #77
KoolKat23 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Properly remixing the content so that it can be considered distinct would be fair use. You can't copyright a style, concept or idea. Also mostly this would be a civil lawsuit for "damages".

It might be legal in the US, but not in the rest of the world. The trial is scheduled for December 2025. That’s when a jury will decide how much Anthropic owes for copying and storing over seven million pirated books

Actually, "the rest of the world" has already legalised AI training in the form of Text and Data Mining Exemption laws.

Re: Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge

#304

Post by jasonlotito »

codedokode wrote: post #282
jasonlotito wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my understanding: > pirating the books for their digital library is not fair use. "Pirating" is a fuzzy word and has no real meaning. Specifically, I think this is the cruz: > without adding new copies, creating new works, or redistributing existing copies Essentially: downloading is fine, sharing/uploading up is not. Which makes sense. The assertion here is that Anthropic (from this line) did not distribute the…

Downloading and using pirated software in a company is fine then as long as it is not shared outside? If what you describe is legal it makes no sense to pay for software.

> Downloading a document is fine as long as it is not shared outside?

I've fixed your question so that it accurately represents what I said and doesn't put words in my mouth.

If I click on a link and download a document, is that illegal?

I do not know if the person has the right to distribute it or not. IANAL, but when people were getting sued by the RIAA years back, it was never about downloading, but also distribution.

As I said, IANAL, but feel free to correct me, but my understanding is that downloading a document from the internet is not illegal.

Re: Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge

#305

Post by alok-g »

dehrmann wrote: post #195

The important parts: > Alsup ruled that Anthropic's use of copyrighted books to train its AI models was "exceedingly transformative" and qualified as fair use > "All Anthropic did was replace the print copies it had purchased for its central library with more convenient space-saving and searchable digital copies for its central library — without adding new copies, creating new works, or redistributing existing copies…

AFAIK, Judge Vince Chhabria has countered that Fair Use argument in a later order involving Meta.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67569326/598/kadrey-v-m...

Note: I am not a lawyer.

Re: Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge

#306

Post by axus »

zoklet-enjoyer wrote: post #287
superfrank wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm trying to find the quote, but I'm pretty sure the judge specifically said that going and buying the book after the fact won't absolve them of liability. He said that for the books they pirated they broke the law and should stand trial for that and they cannot go back and un-break in by buying a copy now. Found it: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/federal-judge-rules-c... > “That Anthropic later bought a cop…

Did they really steal if they didn't deprive anyone of their copy? I don't think copying is theft.

Agreed, the judge should avoid slang or even commonly accepted synonyms in an official ruling. The charge is not for theft.

Substitute infringement for theft.

Re: Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge

#307

Post by bumby »

YPPH wrote: post #47
pyman wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no credible evidence Spotify built their company and business on pirated music. This is a narrative that gets passed around in certain circles to justify stealing content.

"Stealing" isn't an apt term here. Stealing a thing permanently deprives the owner of the thing. What you're describing is copyright infringement, not stealing. In this context, stealing is often used as a pejorative term to make piracy sound worse than it is. Except for mass distribution, piracy is often regarded as a civil wrong, and not a crime.

I think you make a good point, but there is some irony in pointing out the distinction between colloquial and legal use of the term “stealing” while also misusing the term “piracy” to describe legal matters.

It would be more clear if you stick to either legal or colloquial variants, instead of switching back and forth. (Tbf, the judge in this case also used the term “piracy” colloquially).

Re: Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge

#308

Post by lawlessone »

adolph wrote: post #253
organsnyder wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anthropic is selling a service that incorporates these pirated works.

That a service incorporating the authors' works exists is not at issue. The plaintiffs' claims are, as summarized by Alsup: First, Authors argue that using works to train Claude’s underlying LLMs was like using works to train any person to read and write, so Authors should be able to exclude Anthropic from this use (Opp. 16). Second, to that last point, Authors further argue that the training was intended to memorize…

> underlying LLMs was like using works to train any person to read and write

I don't think humans learn via backprop or in rounds/batches, our learning is more "online".

If I input text into an LLM it doesn't learn from that unless the creators consciously include that data in the next round of teaching their model.

Humans also don't require samples of every text in history to learn to read and write well.

Hunter S Thompson didn't need to ingest the Harry Potter books to write.

Re: Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge

#309

Post by charcircuit »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #274
charcircuit wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying that piracy isn't copyright violation is an RMS talking point. It's not worth trying to ask why because the answer will be RMS said so and will not be backed by the common usage of the word.

> RMS Referring to this? (Wikipedia's disambiguation page doesn't seem to have a more likely article.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#Copyright_red...

Yes, quoting the following section:

    Stallman places great importance on the words and labels people use to talk about the world, including the relationship between software and freedom. He asks people to say free software and GNU/Linux, and to avoid the terms intellectual property and piracy (in relation to copying not approved by the publisher). One of his criteria for giving an interview to a journalist is that the journalist agrees to use his terminology throughout the article.

Re: Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge

#310

Post by j_w »

KoolKat23 wrote: post #82
j_w wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say that's the law, as far as I'm aware a single ruling by a lower court has been issued which upholds that application. Hardly settled case law.

True, until then best to act as if it is the case. In my opinion, it will be upheld. Looking at what is stored and the manner which it is stored. It makes sense that it's fair use.

We're talking about a summary judgement issued that has not yet been appealed. That doesn't make it "settled."

If by "what is stored and the manner which it is stored" is intended to signal model weights, I'm not sure what the argument is? The four factors of copyright in no way mention a storage medium for data, lossless or loss-y.

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

In my opinion, this will likely see a supreme court ruling by the end of the decade.

Post reply on HN