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

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

#681

Post by AnthonyMouse » Thu, Jul 10, 2025, 11:40 PM UTC

freejazz wrote: post #567

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure what a "questionable case" for willful copyright infringement might look like. You did anything which it's not clear whether it's fair use or not. Willfulness is whether you knew you were doing it, not whether you knew whether it was fair use, which in many cases nobody knows until a court decides it, hence the problem. You have to do it in order to get into court and find out of you're allowed to do i…

What sort of things do you think people do that it is often the case that there is a genuine question of whether or not the use was fair? >You have to do it in order to get into court and find out of you're allowed to do it (a ridiculous prerequisite to begin with), and then if it goes against you, you have to pay punitive damages? Nobody made you undertake the questionable fair use. If you're gonna fease, you better…

> What sort of things do you think people do that it is often the case that there is a genuine question of whether or not the use was fair

Every time some new technology or other change happens, things become possible that didn't used to be and then nobody knows what the law is going to be until a judge decides the case.

> Nobody made you undertake the questionable fair use. If you're gonna fease, you better not malfease.

But how are you supposed to know that before you get sued? If it's something you are allowed to do, but you don't know that yet for sure, what do you do to find out?

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

#682

Post by badlibrarian » Sun, Jul 13, 2025, 4:48 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #681

freejazz wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What sort of things do you think people do that it is often the case that there is a genuine question of whether or not the use was fair? >You have to do it in order to get into court and find out of you're allowed to do it (a ridiculous prerequisite to begin with), and then if it goes against you, you have to pay punitive damages? Nobody made you undertake the questionable fair use. If you're gonna fease, you better…

> What sort of things do you think people do that it is often the case that there is a genuine question of whether or not the use was fair Every time some new technology or other change happens, things become possible that didn't used to be and then nobody knows what the law is going to be until a judge decides the case. > Nobody made you undertake the questionable fair use. If you're gonna fease, you better not malf…

You can be sued for anything and asked to defend your position for anything.

You need to stop positing hypotheticals and start stating examples. Yes, technology advances and everything from abortion to transportation needs to be reconsidered on an ongoing basis. Admittedly the process for doing so hasn't changed much since the 18th century, but do you have a proposal for improving it?

Between the four factor test, being able to petition the Librarian of Congress for exemptions, and compulsory licensing, in many cases copyright is in a better state than most.

Aside from Internet Archive who continued to do something 400,000 times despite being formally asked to stop three times (scanning old records), I'm unaware of any similar acts of stupidity. Can you provide any examples of recent problems in the space?

Do you have some great idea that you're afraid to try because of lack of specificity in copyright law? There's no shortage of VCs who will take the risk sorting it out; they've made lots of money doing this before.

And you can always ask for permission first. But I suppose where's the fun in that.

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

#683

Post by superfrank » Tue, Jul 15, 2025, 7:03 PM UTC

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.

They stole from the amount they would have legally paid to buy a copy from the copyright holder.

Think about it like sneaking into a movie theater and watch a movie without paying. The theater was going to play the movie anyway and, assuming it wasn't a packed theatre, I didn't deprive anyone else of their ability to watch. It's still theft because I'm getting something that costs money for free and depriving the theater of the money that they're owed.

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

#684

Post by KoolKat23 » Mon, Jul 21, 2025, 3:39 PM UTC

SirMaster wrote: post #225

KoolKat23 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no copyright on knowledge. If it outputs parts of the book verbatim then that's a different story.

>If it outputs parts of the book verbatim then that's a different story. But it does...

Not really, these have to be meaningful chunks and then yes, this is a separate court case.

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

#685

Post by KoolKat23 » Mon, Jul 21, 2025, 3:42 PM UTC

nwienert wrote: post #524

KoolKat23 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the law. Please keep in mind, copyright is intended as a compromise between benefit to society and to the individual. A thought experiment, students pirating textbooks and applying that knowledge later on in their work?

Its the law (for now, very early on this in the process of deciding the law, untested, appealable, likely to be appealed and tested many times in many ways). Meanwhile other cases have been less friendly to it being fair use, AI companies are already paying vast sums to publishers who presumably they wouldn’t if they felt confident it was “the law”, and on and on. I don’t like arguing from “it’s the law”. A lot of la…

They're paying those sums, because legal fees are expensive and this ensures ongoing access in future.

Remember, copyright has always been a comprise between individuals and society in the first place. We can extend it but in the same breath, it may have other unforseen consequences.

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

#686

Post by KoolKat23 » Mon, Jul 21, 2025, 3:45 PM UTC

nwienert wrote: post #676

KoolKat23 wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I use my Microsoft Word processor in the right way I can reproduce it too.

The law is good at dismissing bad faith arguments like this, they are conceptually very far apart.

My point if you are going so far as to piece it together, you can't blame the LLM. The individual chose to do that. And copyright law primarily is concerned with the actual physical reproduced object at the end of the day not tools used (piecing it together means it is merely a tool).