hckrnws
Judge approves $1.5B Anthropic settlement for pirated books used to train Claude
(apnews.com)
564
622
by BeetleB
by BeetleB
At least not as far as the courts are concerned. Alsup ruled [0] that feeding a book into an LLM is transformative and counts as fair use. Especially when they purchased a physical copy of the book, scanned it, and destroyed the original.
But if I'm reading the ruling correctly, Anthropic might have been fine even with feeding pirated books into their LLM (as long as they planned to eventually deleted them afterwards)
Where Anthropic ran into problems is that they put all their pirated books into a big central library (file on a server), and planned to keep those copies forever. Including copies they never actually fed into the LLM (a point that seriously worked against them).
Alsup ruled this central library of pirated books was copyright infringement. And it's this "pirated central library" that Anthropic are now paying a a 1.5B settlement for, nothing else.
The fact that the pirated books were also used to train LLMs is legally irrelevant. Though... I suspect a non AI company could have negotiated a significantly smaller settlement.
[0] https://copyrightalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Bar...
So, by that logic, you need to be paying every time you regurgitate any of my ideas. Or anyone else's. Copyright now protects abstractions and vibes. Substantial similarity test be damned. Nobody can write stories about wizard schools, the idea is taken.
The output of an LLM can be easily be such, but usually not.
> You need to have a very specific and 'creative' / 'substantial' expression of an idea for copyright to apply. The output of an LLM can be easily be such, but usually not.
This is incomplete with current US law. You need the above (the typical copyright qualifiers) AND evidence of substantial human involvement in the creation.
Minimally directing an autonomous agent does not qualify.
Au contraire! Now the creations of the LLMs stand on legal ground. This was an excellent deal for Anthropic
Perfect - an absolute steal for 1.5B.
This does not do enough to fix the root problem.
People who live right now, who happen to have written or produced anything that AI works with, build on the back of humanities combined knowledge, will become outsized beneficiaries of AI, with the AI wave offering new ways of monetizing their work – while everyone who has not, won't be.
It's simply not good enough. We have to make sure people broadly benefit first and foremost.
That doesn’t make sense. You cannot copyright an idea, only the specific expression of the idea.
We're trying to own ideas now?
The settlement does not pertain to any outputs
[deleted]
Now, if I license the book, I might be able to come to an agreement with the author/publisher whereby I can share some of it.
(Then again, US copyright law often is insanely draconian.)
and then sell to all its subscribers, things need to change.
Fixed that for you.
Imagine being able to pay a fraction of your savings to download all Netflix shows and then sell 1 minute chunk of every media to your paid subscribers.
[deleted]
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.43...
The big deal for publishers and authors is the payout per eligible title is $3k. For a traditional publishing contract involving one author, the amount will be split down the middle.
The other thing which caught my eye is the judge slashed the class counsel's fee by half, from 12.5% ($187.5m) to 6.8% ($101m). The class counsel's unreimbursed litigation expenses were $2.6m.
The three class representatives get just $15k each.
He's also a longtime hobbyist programmer working in BASIC, much of it in support of his ham radio hobby. Screenshots of his shortwave propagation prediction program here [1].
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/19/16503076/oracle-vs-googl...
Police descended upon Kim Dotcom like he was a terrorist or something. They rappelled down helicopters and stormed his home like he was bin Laden.
Then these big techs come along and they make some absurd cost of doing business settlement.
[dead]
I created books3 to help settle the question of whether AI companies should be allowed to train on books. The outcome of "it's okay to pirate books as long as you're only training on them" was a long shot, but it would've let individual hackers train their own AI models (assuming access to sufficient compute, which you can get e.g. via https://sites.research.google/trc/about/).
Now we're in a world where you have to have dozens of millions in capital to do substantial work.
I heard at one point Eleuther was gathering public domain training data. I wonder if they ever built a corpus large enough so that training on books doesn't really matter...
Most never do.
Maybe publishers should JUST pay authors WELL, and get a book every 2-3 years.
https://authorsguild.org/news/key-takeaways-from-2023-author...
In the couple of few where the party would not agree to a settlement and the RIAA sued, they would pick about 15 of the thousand+ songs to sue over. Statutory damages are a minimum of $750 per infringed work, so the total would now be about 3-5 times what their settlement offer amount had been.
Most parties then got a lawyer, the lawyer told the party that had no chance, and they would then seriously negotiate with the RIAA and get a settlement.
Only a couple would still not settle, went to trial, and did an absolutely terrible job and the judge/jury awarded well above the minimum statutory damages. The RIAA still tried to settle for well below that, but the defendants refused and kept trying to fight and did not have a happy time.
This deal is built around Anthropic surviving. The $1.5B comes in installments, and counsel’s fees are paid in step with those installments.
The class is now effectively Anthropic’s creditor, with a direct financial interest in the company staying solvent through the payment schedule.
Civil suits compensate and the one outcome guaranteed to leave authors worse off was a verdict big enough to kill the payer.
For context, the ruling is basically, "AI training is fair use but building a library of pirated books to train on is not". This is obviously because Judge Alsup does not want to put AI under a de-facto ban, but he wants AI companies to have to care about copyright... which in my opinion is self-contradictory, but let's go along with the (paraconsistent) logic.
If we insist that every prior act up to a fair use must be lawful, then this means that fair use is not a right, but a privilege that is purchased alongside the work itself. This opens the door to Oracle-level shenanigans: so long as every legal avenue to watch a work is encumbered by, say, a DeWitt clause[0], you cannot legally review the work. There are actually copyright cases hinging on this: Triller Fight Club sued H3H3 for reviewing a pirated stream of a Logan Paul fight that lasted 40 seconds and lost, for obvious reasons. This case smells like an accidental overturning of this.
Would I rather live in a world where robots[1] aren't allowed to read copyrighted books, or a world where copyright owners have veto rights over any and all critical commentary of their work? I would happily choose the former every time.
[0] A contractual clause that prohibits the recipient of a work from reviewing it without written permission of the owner.
[1] Mind uploads inclusive
There used to be libgen. Then it went down. It went semi-back up but ... it is still kind of down.
Those issues kind of coincided with the big greedy mega-corporations leeching off data en masse; Anthropic was not the only one, Facebook is another example here. I always wondered whether the decline in quality, fewer liberated books published, coincided with what the big corporations were doing. Would be great to be able to see any underlying strategy here. Imagine Anthropic, just as a scenario, leeching off of everyone else, and then also sending in their lawyers to try to close down what they leeched off here. I mean the rise of bots kind of coincides with the rise of AI. So why not them also trying to make it harder for the rest of the world to access liberated books.
Cover-your-ass strategy, and nothing more. Who, besides the ones at fault, are ever happy with these mean-nothing fines?
The justice system really needs an overhaul with how it tackles "justice" between the wealthy, the connected, the corporations, and the rest. Though I am unsure what that would look like. Minimum net wealth per category of infraction across the board?
Edit: grammar
According to US federal law, pirating a single copyrighted work and gaining commercial advantage of it (which Anthropic 100% did) represents five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. But it gets worse:
"Penalties for a copyright infringement conviction may increase if the defendant has previous similar convictions, made more than 10 copies of copyrighted works, committed copyright infringement during a period longer than 180 days, or infringed copyrighted material worth more than $2,500."
https://www.justia.com/entertainment-law/piracy-in-the-enter...
Edited for slight typo.
This outcome seems to be the best possible for Anthropic. Over 100B$ have been invested in AI so far, venture capital can afford to pay a few billions per big company as a South Park style "Sorry".
Or am I missing something?
The summary judgment ruling from 2025 in this case will still be legal precedence, the settlement will mean that there is no trial for damages.
However, since this is a district court ruling it is non-binding on other courts.
Anthropic should take it from its marketing/strategic budget. It just bought itself a 1.5B moat at exactly the time it can afford it.
>It appears that LLMs have already incorporated APOSD EDIT: The text of the book _A Philosophy of Software Design_ ENDEDIT (which would seem to be illegal, since it is copyrighted). For example, I have asked ChatGPT questions about APOSD and it seems to be able to answer.
https://groups.google.com/g/software-design-book/c/_wl1DciZZ...
The verdict is a joke.
> According to state and federal authorities, Swartz used JSTOR, a digital repository,[79] to download a large number[note 2] of academic journal articles through MIT's computer network over the course of a few weeks
> ...federal prosecutors filed a superseding indictment adding nine more felony counts, increasing Swartz's maximum criminal exposure to 50 years of imprisonment
> ...On the evening of January 11, 2013, Swartz's girlfriend, Stinebrickner-Kauffman, found him dead in his Brooklyn apartment.[80][116][117] A spokesperson for New York's Medical Examiner reported that he had hanged himself
If failure means catastrophe for the nation, it shouldn't have been a private, for-profit project in the first place and instead be a public project.
It's trendy to say it'll be the later, but I see a credible case for the former.
I see no reason to pay for a textbook in 2026, while I'm happy to pay an expensive monthly subscription for a coding agent.
(And before someone accuses me of being anti education or anything, bona fide scientist with a PhD here and I have written book chapters for a couple of popular textbooks).
Even though Anthropic is my daily driver I’m done respecting any sort of copyright. I’m okay paying for subscription for a service delivery but never ever again will I believe in copyright or any other utterly non-enforceable similar concept.
As such, if you pirated a book and had to pay $3000 for that one instance, I don't think you'd like it if I said you should have paid $30K or $300K instead. If anything, this is analogous to the ridiculous fines people had to pay when pirating music.
(Not that I'm complaining...)
1. I feel like this should be discussed globally, there should be a public debate, a vote, and guardrails
2. It should not be in the hands of private companies, it should either be done by the government and made available to the public ; or if it’s done by private companies they should be mandated to give the training data to the government so it’s available to the public.
My point is we can decide to say it’s ok because LLMs are too important strategically. But if we do so it should benefit the public, not 5 mega corporations, training data should be considered as public infrastructure, like roads, rails, or the electricity grid. Societies are failing and this is just one more nail in the coffin.
[deleted]
In the UK, we have a thing called the Public Lending Right [1]. This pays authors a fixed sum each time their book is taken out of a library, up to a capped amount.
The cap isn't very high - about $7k - so it is both an OK bit of income for authors who might be making very little money elsewhere, and also doesn't end up all going to authors who are already bestsellers. It's a decent legal system for helping libraries hold niche titles as well as the popular ones. This is, after all, the purpose of a library.
To establish my bias here: My debut novel came out after the period this specific suit concerns. I also uploaded it to LibGen myself.
I strongly believe that books should be available to read, free of charge, to all people. I benefited enormously from libraries and piracy growing up. I think they serve an important educational purpose that does not end when a person leaves school, and I do not think wealth or disposable income is a fair way to decide the breadth of a person's education.
I also have no problem with people making new "language things" using my work. I love sample-based music (like dance music, hip hop, etc) and it'd be hypocritical for me to take issue with anyone doing analogous things using books. Maximising sales is not the end-goal of making art, for me personally. Other artists feel otherwise. They consider training on pirated books stealing. That's OK - it's not for me to tell them what to believe.
The problem for me is that these corporations - undoubtedly still pretraining on pirated material - are, essentially, leeching. By not releasing the model as open-weight, freely available, they are not acting in the same spirit of the system they took advantage of. It's the Spotify model: pirate first, pay a nominal amount that does not meaningfully harm profit later. Now the dust has settled there, we can see the harm it has done to music culture.
A single settlement which does not establish precedent does not solve anything. A tokenistic $3k allows anti-AI authors to wave a cheque in the air and declare a victory. It pays the rent for a month or two. It does nothing for the months after that, when the corporation is still profiting. It does nothing to establish precedent for future artists, who also have to pay rent.
It would be (non-trivial, but) relatively simple to integrate - for example - download figures from Anna's Archive into the PLR. I'd happily dilute my PLR payment appropriately, because I think libraries are important.
You can't stop people pirating digitally replicable things. Digital ownership is not a concept that has held, or will hold.
There are only 23,000 authors in the UK who claim the cash from the PLR. To pay all those authors the national living wage in the UK (£26k) from the PLR, you would need to raise £546 million. That is around 1/34 of Anthropic's reported annual revenue.
I'm of course not arguing Anthropic should be solely responsible. But it's very frustrating that all the pieces of the puzzle for actually paying artists in a sustainable and ongoing way now exist, and one of the major obstacles to this - and the idea of a genuinely free, legal, international library, which creates more authors, writing better books, full-time - are legacy rights holders who remain attached to a completely dysfunctional and outdated concept of ownership.
So - unless part of a sustained and reasonable campaign, which understands the futility of (and damage to the medium and its creators caused by) treating digital ownership in the same way as physical ownership - this suit is close to pointless, and arguably actively harmful in the long term.
[dead]
Why would we use a multi-billion parameter model to copy text? If we wanted the originals it would be easier to find them free, pirate or pay, if we use LLMs it is because we want something ELSE.
And caring about content rights in a world with limitless content and scarce attention is a mistake, it was never the content that was scarce in the last 20 years.
I don't think royalties or settlements are really the point here. AI must be a net benefit to humanity, or we burn everything to the ground, it's that simple.
The next few decades of AI need to lift everyone up, it needs to eliminate the most degrading and dangerous jobs while providing abundance. There is simply no point to robots if they don't serve us and make everything cheaper and more accessible to us.
We are watching Wall Street. The Devon's and Luigi's of the world are not interested in your settlement figure or what this means to shareholders. Humanity needs to be aware that it either keeps parasites at bay or the parasites are going to build a robot and surveillance army. It is literally us or them.
I'm not anti-AI, I am not scared of AI going rogue, I simply recognise that these people cannot be trusted, they do not care about your rules, there is no "regulating" it, the only thing that can scare them is a million people holding pitchforks outside their building.
>$3000 per book
Ohhhh, yeah, big copyright fines only apply to us little guys, not the "asshole tech" companies.
It’s important to remember that a court’s job is to apply law to a situation. When a court gets something wrong it’s a misinterpretation of the law and will, by definition, be overturnable on appeal. I suspect that your objection isn’t that the court is wrong, it’s that the law is wrong.
Sir Thomas More: "Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?"
William Roper: "Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!"
Sir Thomas More: "Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!"
A lawless man can be struck down with force without persecution by law, because they are lawless.
Doesn't this define modern day police force theory?
Ill gotten copyrighted material is illegal. What can be done with it after is a completely separate issue.
I’m guessing you have some kind of imagined idea of some small author being compensated handsomely for his book and all future earnings that could have come from it. Reality though is that between the attorneys that will run away with some high triple digit millions and the corporations that own the rights to the subject works, there will be measly “checks” for any actual person that created anything, i.e., an artist or author.
In an odd way, this whole case is really just “capitalism” cannibalizing itself, i.e., publishers greedily and also in a terrified manner trying to steal away as much capital from the technological shift to AI as possible in order to either create a buffer or fund their transformation to adapt to what AI means to the very nature of writing itself, let alone publishing.
I suspect human writing could survive, but I don’t see any room for publishers.
You're just falling into the trap of anthropomorphizing the phrase "training" in the context of LLMs, which is not the same things as what humans do. There is no evidence they are the same thing and there is nothing to support the notion that what an LLM does when it "trains" on a book is equivalent to a human reading it.
Yes, for some texts that's possible. But for the vast majority, it is not.
The New York Times lawsuit is resting on the point that large chunks of undigested articles can be vomited out. OpenAI tried to have the lawsuit thrown out but the courts permitted it to continue.
The Times... alleged that OpenAI's ChatGPT and Microsoft's Copilot had produced near-verbatim replicas of copyrighted articles, that the chatbots generated hallucinated content falsely attributed to the Times, ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_v._Microsof...
No because we are people and the laws differ for people, corporations, and machines.
Quit trying to make AIs human, people who are trying to make AI human keep forgetting that humanized AI's have only the morals relevant to their mission, there is no profit in humanizing AI's because if we continue on this track of humanizing AI's, we being stupid humans will grant them civil rights expecting these new AI's with rights will somehow respect our rights and thats a fundamental misunderstanding of how AI'S actually work.
Imagine a society without copyright… only physically intensive jobs could make money because everything else would be pirated, ripped-off or free. Thus, only those who are financially independent could afford to publish. Because the world really needs more rich class propaganda…
Copyright far more protects the wealthy than the good. They don't need to sell your book, they just need to own the book that people are buying right now. Giving your book a chance to sell would dectract from those sales.
If there were no copyright anyone trying to sell the book $1 cheaper would be undercut by someone selling $1 cheaper them them, and so on. The financial incentive to do that goes away. People then choose to distribute based on different incentives, like the fact that they have seen something worthy that others should see. We have almost completely lost that today because the financial incentive doesn't care what it is as long as you buy it. That might lead to a world dominated by an optimisation for whatever it takes to get you engaged, or worse, addicted. That world might really suck.
There needs to be a way to support the creation of art. Copyright lets a few corporations decide the subset of available art is seen enough and available to pay for (in the hope that maybe some of the patment gets to the creator). It is not a system that works in the modern world.
For example. I invent a new method of power washing. I start a power washing business using new tech. I file the tech for patent and copyright-equivalent use. This is then made available to other power wash companies that wish to use the tech and be certified in it so long as a small portion of their revenue goes back to the inventor for a set amount per volume, or something similar of a metric that has a cutoff after a point.
This will breed new industries, create new jobs, introduce new innovations, and allow the markets to move on from being strangled by one giant corporation.
A: rich people pay less % in taxes than wage workers, we should close the loopholes
B: but taxes are immoral to begin with
A: ok, but can we do something now about the unequal enforcement? Unrealized gains, tax havens, trusts, fake charities, etc?
B: well a society based on property rights… ackhully you should read this book by Mises/Rothbard/Rand
The internet, in true internet fashion, still has the general logic level of a 15 year old.
[deleted]
The court says otherwise.
> Such piracy of otherwise available copies is inherently, irredeemably infringing even if the pirated copies are immediately used for the transformative use and immediately discarded.
Then it says it doesn't need to decide on that basis because they kept it not just for training LLMs, but also for building a central library. Which seems a bit ridiculous, because the sole purpose of the central library is to train LLMs.
> But if I'm reading the ruling correctly, Anthropic might have been fine even with feeding pirated books into their LLM (as long as they eventually deleted them afterwards)
The way I understood it, was that essentially the entire case rested on if Anthropics use was "transformative" or not. And since they literally destroyed the books (not just delete files, which would be copied), that made it transformative.
Regardless if they deleted files or not, if nothing existing was transformed, it would have been illegal. But because of the destruction of k̶n̶o̶w̶l̶e̶d̶g̶e̶ physical property, this ended up being legal.
You have to be careful, just because the judge points a factor out as notable, doesn't mean that factor was required.
The destruction of source books makes Anthropic's fair use argument [2] especially air tight, but it would be a mistake to assume that act was required, or is what made it transformative.
In the previous google books case [1] (which this case cites), google borrowed books from libraries, scanned them, then returned them. They were not destroyed, google didn't even keep the physical copy.
Yet Google Books was ruled fair use, because it was transformative.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,....
[2] Note... This part of the ruling is still not about LLMs. This was about Anthropic's right to scan books and then keep a digital library of them.
I thought that was explicitly disallowed use... like turning someone else's book into an audiobook and selling streaming access to it.
Or writing a film adaptation and selling the film.
Clearly I was thinking about it all wrong. Those wouldn't be allowed, even if you legally aquire the book from a store or library.
But it was an important factor in the google books case.
One of the other key factors is how it impacts potential sales of the original work. Turning it into an audiobook might be transformative, but when you sell access to it people will buy your audiobook instead of the original book. So it's almost certainly not fair use.
In the google books case, google scanned the books but didn't distribute the content of the books to the user. They only distributed the transformed ability to search books to users. The sales of the books weren't impacted negatively, because the user still had to acquire a copy of the book from somewhere else if they wanted to read the whole work. In fact, google books arguable increases sales of the original work in some circumstances.
The transformativeness of the use is independent of the destruction of the books. The destruction of the books allowed them to argue that they had not duplicated them, and was instrumental in the argument supporting the legality of scanning them. But that's entirely upstream of the way the data was leveraged, which is what is critical in the argument about the use being transformative.
You're not. Even if training is fair use, it doesn't mean you can steal copies to train the model. It just means the training itself isn't an infringement (in Alsup's opinion). Stealing the copies of the books was an infringement and that's exactly the liability that Anthropic settled.
[dead]
It seems to be the modus operandi of corporations in general: they commit any kind of infringement they want and then later they go for a settlement with a value that's, of course, not too big for a company too big to fail.
In the meantime, the average person or company gets shafted.
In my opinion, we are one step away from AI companies capturing the entirety of copyright legislation.
When the legal judgements for wrongdoing are finally handed out, they often come across as just an inconvenience or kind of tax, which is easily handled in comparison to the profits they've already made. Yet, if average Joe or persons not considered as being of "the right type" were to do such actions, they quickly get the full book thrown at them. Often, the full measure of legal punishment, where their company and life is or about nearly over.
Wait, no, not verbatim. It transforms upper case into lower case and vice versa.
playing an MP3 at a venue, streaming it or distributing it is a copyrighted act because, despite not being a verbatim copy of the original material, it is capable of producing a nearly-verbatim version of that intellectual property well enough that most people won't be able to notice the difference.
similarly, as has been shown (by numerous publishers and authors), LLMs are capable of producing nearly-verbatim versions of the texts they have been trained on, to a well enough quality that most people won't be able to notice the difference.
the fact that an MP3 cannot "paraphrase" or "summarize" the audio data is not what makes it copyrighted, and neither does the ability of an LLM to "paraphrase" or "summarize" the textual data it's been trained on, make it any less intellectual property theft
the motivation for the audio case is the sense that the listener will not care whether the DJ plays an MP3 (they didn't pay for) or plays the original record (they would have paid for).
similarly for the lossily compressed text engine aka LLM's case, many people will not care whether they get this textual information paraphrased or nearly verbatim from an LLM trained on pirated books, or the original books.
the fact that an LLM also has the ability to paraphrase or summarize the pirated textual information it's been trained on, doesn't really matter if it's also capable of producing nearly verbatim copies of (parts of) those texts.
to underline this point even more, we know that MP3s (and more modern and much more efficient codecs like OPUS, after that) have been psycho-acoustically optimized to store exactly the least amount of data that will get "the point" of that music across to the listener, to the extent that they do not need the original recording any more. this is the stated goal of lossy compressed audio, after all. well, it also happens to be the (pretty much stated) goal of LLM companies, to store exactly the least amount of data that will get the point of that text to the reader. and it does tend to cause the readers to not really care about the original book any more.
having said all that, I don't mean to argue to lock it all up. I actually mean to argue that we should demand that Anthropic and Open AI release their weights data, and if anyone were to happen to break into them and steal that data, I would have exactly zero pity for that. because fair is fair.
Is this not..Libre?
Why this distinction only for intellectual work?
An Eames chair is, we just have a really high bar for what is copyrightable in the physical world, and it seems pointlessly discriminatory.
Is AI just an algorithm. Is human creativity just an algorithm?
Who, if anyone should own the copyright if you prompt AI to write a book?
I'm thinking more from a moral and philosophical pov, the copyright regime is broken anyway
> There needs to be a royalty payment based on if the AI regurgitates existing ideas. That is probably the correct way to legislate this. If anything a human does can instantly be copied by an LLM, and then sent to all its subscribers, things need to change
Expect it will be clarified and/or changed by law given how much money is at stake, but the current state is what the current state is.
If I were developing key IP with agents, I'd be very careful to document my human contribution.
That phrase is doing a lot of work. In the US, any writing is automatically protected by copyright. (This comment, for example.) Whether the author can claim infringement is a can of worms: legal costs, fair use … but your “very specific” phrasing makes it sound like there’s a prescription for exactly what is protected by copyright - there is not.
> Ideas are not protected by copyright.
The expression of the idea is, however. Same with facts. The fact that I live at a specific street address is not protected. My sentence construction explaining my specific street address is protected.
> The output of an LLM …
… is not protected, not matter its shape. The US Copyright Office has declared as much.
https://drewdevault.com/blog/Alice-in-Wonderland/
Copyright is a textbook ladder pull.
I am not against trademark. e.g. Disney has a right on who can sell Mickey Mouse figurine, or Marvel has right over Iron man character and franchise.
Can we use the modern tech (AI) to policy copyright infringement, to liberate the culture and business?
Without copyright, anyone can copy the art and call it their own. What is then the incentive for the creator to share the art, if there is neither monetory gain and nor fame. And worse than them being recognized, they might even get accused of copying their own art if someone else became famous due to a copy.
Society would miss out a lot.
> And worse than them being recognized, they might even get accused of copying their own art if someone else became famous due to a copy.
You mean like right now? Here is A24 claiming copyright for Backrooms related media that came out before their Backrooms related film: https://kotaku.com/backrooms-a24-copyright-strikes-kane-pars...
Being "accused" of copying literally does not matter if copyright didn't exist. This framing is only an issue under copyright.
> Society would miss out a lot.
Society actively misses out a lot. We could have had tons of derivative art that has been buried for the sake of propping up companies. We could have had Aaron Swartz. Abolish copyright.
There are lots of famous artists that made art before color image capture and reproduction (1930s-60s) and digital image capture and reproduction (90s-00s).
Copyrightless artist fame and economic viability is enabled by a lack of widely-accessible, cheap reproductive methods.
> You mean like right now? Here is A24 claiming copyright for Backrooms related media...
Since resolved: https://kotaku.com/backrooms-director-kane-parsons-a24-copyr...
Turns out when you outsource copyright policing to minimum wage folks, ambiguity goes out the window.
> Society actively misses out a lot. We could have had tons of derivative art that has been buried for the sake of propping up companies. We could have had Aaron Swartz. Abolish copyright.
The problem with absolutist arguments is that they ignore inconvenient facts.
At a time when creative and art economics is under siege, how would copyrightless art make enough money for the creators?
The fact of the acquisition of large swaths of copyright rights by large corporations does not negate the fact that artists need food (and ideally, a place to live and a way to provide for their family).
There are positions that might enable that (Hey, what if we banned the assignment of copyright to corporations? Human only? Original creator only?), but none of them are stripping all rights from intellectual property.
> And worse than them being recognized, they might even get accused of copying their own art if someone else became famous due to a copy.
This happens now all the time, and the winner is determined by who can afford the best lawyers.
You should not be able to mass generate images in a particular artists style and claim it as fair use, even if a human making the same images would have protection.
What about aleatory music (music left at least partially to chance)? Or Autechre - they have whole albums and live performances built on automation software. They built the logic and added randomization, necessarily removing themselves from the final output.
Is spin art not copyrightable? If I build a simple machine that spins paper, then do no more than drop paint on it, the result is not mine to copyright? I didn’t choose the output, I merely built the machine and the rest was created by pure chance. “But you chose the paint” - and if I didn’t? What if my art uses AI to perform sentiment analysis on the top news articles of the day and it drops colors matching the emotional tone of the news onto the spin art machine. I have no control over it and the output is machine generated, but is the result not just the final step of an entire process I created? Was the result of the creative idea not part of the creativity itself?
If I build an automated laboratory to test every combination of a problem space, is a resulting success not patentable? What if the problem is too large to permute, so I added a random selection process to it? I’m not even controlling what’s being tested, but if it finds success is that not my contribution? The machines did the work, the selection was random, there was no human in the loop; what then?
The internals of an LLM may be mysterious to some, but I assure you it’s just fixed automation with a random number generator sometimes tacked onto it, but randomization is optional too.
I built that LLM. I decided what text to input for training, I curated the information, I wrote the algorithm, I decided the layers and hyper-parameters, I decided the RLHF pairs to train, then I put a few drops of paint from my bottle of language into the automated machine. I decided and built every single step of the system, but that output is not part of my process? If I pipe the LLM text output to a paint dispenser hovering over paper, set to squeeze out drops based on syllables, would you protect my artwork then?
Since when?
Whereas for a book it is fair use.
Now only big tech companies can train models
With model distillation being so effective now nobody actually needs to pirate books to train their models. You can get an open-weight Chinese model and get all that. Or you can just buy the books or buy a library - there are many creative solutions here that aren't piracy and not going to cost you billions of dollars.
The moat right now seems to be the compute resources which might actually be worse for us common folk than a legal moat as we need compute for many more things that aren't LLMs too.
This is simply an agreement between two parties.
Meta also has copyright lawsuits for the open models they released, so open models are not immune.
... unless the line we want to draw is "american orgs pay, others don't", as currently seems to be happening.
That is the case, any regulation increases the cost to enter a market.
But in this case, its irrelevant because the moat of cost to enter is already unfathomable and secondly, they are not adding regulation but fining them for committing a crime.
So yeah, adding that every food compnay needs 3 health inspectors that they pay for would benefit coca cola over you mom and pop bakery. But telling someone they cannot start a Space agency with money laundered from ransom and drug sales payments would not affect much the competition markets
At the moment.
Current believe is that its a "winner takes all market", so companies are acting rationally and using Brute Force compute to get there first. Training costs scale linearly, which means the moat is directly related to compute cost
There are theories that they are wasting 90% of training costs and there are more efficient ways to do it than throw compute at the problem. But if thats the case then chances are the market is not "winner takes all". Which then means the valuation of the ENTIRE market is overvalued.
Basically the only way for the assertion "at the moment" to be true is if the market is a bubble, else if the current theory of winner takes all market means a monopoly will make it so that cost isnt even the worst of the moats to enter.
Source: was a licensed real estate agent for a long time.
If this is the 2024 settlement that you are referring to, it did not say anything about the price a Realtor can charge:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnett_v._National_Associatio...
>The cooperative compensation rule has been eliminated as a result of the settlement. Seller's agents are no longer required to offer compensation to buyer's agents when listing a home for sale on a Realtor-owned multiple listing service. In addition, Realtors acting as buyer's agents must enter into contracts with buyers before touring any homes, allowing buyers to negotiate how much they will pay their buyer's agent.
In my state, the people hired to write new bills (if passed becoming statute) have to pass their JD (law degree). Legislators only get to request new bills, they can't hand a proposal (which may have been written by a lobbying agency like ALEC or Heritage) into the system.
In what sane state does it even get that high?
[deleted]
[dead]
His middle name is Haskell.
It's funny that crimes can be settled in cash. IOW, everything has a price; and the price is always right. Settlement ought to be the euphemism for blood money.
In addition to the settlement, what I'd consider fair is to have these companies pay royalties in perpetuity. Of course, that's not tractable.
No, that's what they got in trouble for - a lack of consent.
If the author consents, it would have been fine. If they bought the books, then it is fine. Digitisation through destruction, like most book scanning systems. As long as the original work is destroyed during the process, and you actually paid for it, then it is fair use.
If it regurgitates, then the author can sue you again. So you are incentivised to make damn sure it doesn't. That's not covered by fair use.
Its only if the original cannot be accessed anymore, and you paid to get the original. Both must be true, for fair use to hold.
> Literary works, including computer programs and databases, protected by access control mechanisms that fail to permit access because of malfunction, damage, or obsoleteness.
DRM being covered under other laws, and being gross, still applies. And still applies to industry giants, too. Which is why most who do this, like Google, actually buy physical copies and scan it destructively, so they don't have to deal with it.
Yeah, you are right. Have you been paying your dues to the authors of your math books in first 4 grades? I think 15% of your wages as an engineer would suffice. These kids continue to profit for years, and they are so many. Gotta pot a stop to that IP theft.
In my mistake I thought copyright was about copying rights, not paying for using ideas themselves. If just being downstream from a copyrighted work is infringement even without substantial similarity, then it's more like patents that expire in lifetime + a million years.
Learning from and building on previous work is civilization. Copyright maximalism is a plague.
Yes, that is the entire history of humanity. People steal the last generations works and build something from it to make it their own.
How does intellectual work get funded in this insane world if yours, pray tell?
If he was not aware, I wonder if he still would have described the process as "exceedingly transformative" had he been aware.
Note also that Sonnet 3.7 had to be jailbroken.
Note also that they got high memorization for a few books that were widely quoted. The books in question can probably also be "retrieved" by putting phrase prefixes into Google, which is probably why Sonnet 3.7 knows them with the precision of a fanboy. Material being widely repeated in the training set is a well-known cause of memorization.
Edit: Apologies, I misread it as "100 pages". My point about copyright still stands, though.
[deleted]
We barely consider the latter a crime. Just pay 10% of your take back into the settlement fund and don't get caught next time.
I think it's just a matter of time until everyone learns this. And then it will be the end of the slowly dying liberal democracies.
What was Sean Parker sued for again?
2. There's incredible value in what they stole.
3. IANAL, but I don't believe "but now everyone can write like a terrible version of the writer we fleeced" is a valid legal defense.
Copying is not theft.
Obviously exaggerating.. but not by much.
Some of you really don’t deserve good things. You should be blocked from using AI on more than one device without paying an additional subscription plan.
Any way, the internal emails are available where you can see the executives of megaupload knew exactly what megaupload was being used for, and even used it themselves to pirate content, and went out of their way to allow copyrighted content to remain up after takedown notices were sent.
- @Nevermark
If I put my conspiracy theory hat one and I always get piled on for this theory in other online communities but I think it could be possible. The theory is I think Aaron found some very dark stuff while exploring the MIT private networks, things that he was not supposed to see and could be very damaging to a lot people if they were exposed. The infamous Jeffery Epstein was donating a lot of money to MIT and its Media Labs. I think there is a much deeper story at play that the mainstream narrative is hiding with a “suicide”.
Epstein was relatively restrained even in his personal email, I doubt he was using MIT administrated systems to facilitate a pedo ring
It's crazy that you could face 35 years in jail for trying to free knowledge in a harmless manner. The longest anyone has been imprisoned for in my country in modern times is 26 years, 11 months and 6 days. We have a few people posed to break that record. Peter Lundin has been in prison for 25ish years, and him and Peter Madsen (the discount elon musk turned murderer who killed some poor journalist in is selfmade submarine) are contenders to people who will probably go beyond 35 years.
Not that our system is perfect. I think we're far too lenient on some crimes, but risking 35 years in jail for downloading and sharing academic knowledge... That's objectively evil.
A Gaylord is a type of box that fits on a pallet. There are multiple ways to palletize products, like shrink wrapping or metal banding
(an observation, not agreement)
Let them take on the liability
> Anthropic spent many millions of dollars to purchase millions of print books, often in used condition. Then, its service providers stripped the books from their bindings, cut their pages to size, and scanned the books into digital form — discarding the paper originals. Each print book resulted in a PDF copy containing images of the scanned pages with machine-readable text (including front and back cover scans for softcover books
This is worse than pirating books to an absurd degree, it's almost a parody - the company that slurps all human knowledge ends up not only metaphorically, but also physically destroying those books, like an information vampire.
Authors don't even receive any financial compensation if the books were bought second hand, either. There's no benefit in doing that. (Not that making one final sale of a hardcover copy would make any difference though)
If Anthropic were at least buying ebooks, this insanity wouldn't need to happen. Unfortunately there is no bulk rates for buying millions of ebooks like you have in the used book market
But if you don't want to ban them, telling them to buy one book of each, likely second hand, is complete pettiness that resulted in destructive scanning of millions of books, many of which were already practically available in digital form.
at least in Player Piano they paid the workers who made the cassette tapes that made the robots work.
our current LLM overlords demand that they be able to basically steal the sum total of all human knowledge so that they can sell it back to us at a rate they set.
they should have been shunned by society and made penniless when they first announced their goals but we have a bunch of deeply misanthropic people who have money and want to make a world where computer slaves do their bidding.
So, mind sending me your bank account information? I'll promise to make good use of it.
You get a service. The service is using their compute power to run a model and their scientists to build the model.
There are a couple problems with this approach.
Firstly, while the median income is 20k, the book business is like films or music; ie not evenly distributed. At the top end are a small number of successful authors. They effectively subsidize the publishing house while the house throws advances at authors hoping for the next big whale.
Many books never earn back their advance. Meaning if the author was paid out of royalties they'd make less, not more.
Making advances bigger would result in fewer advances. The pot of money is finite.
This is all happening in a market where supply is unconstrained (everyone thinks they can write), and demand is very limited.
And before we discuss the value, or lack thereof of having an intermediary at all, it should be noted from your link that the median for published authors is higher than self-published authors. So clearly they seem to be making authors more valuable.
In truth of course, most (published) books aren't terribly valuable. Like music and movies most float to the bottom.
So no, the answer is not "pay authors more".
Thats a nice way of saying publishing houses are paying most authors more than they make from the sales
A typical book isn't making the publisher much profit but they aren't losing money on it either.
Well the publisher also pays for the book to be bound, edited, overhead for their staff, cover art. Many books don't sell for the full retail price and are discounted. So net of all of this a 10% profit margin is common, they aren't keeping 90% of the book sales.
Most of their investments fail miserably, but they only need one Google/Stephen King.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Then in the second phase when they lost the ability to identify people that way they switched to filing "John Doe" lawsuits, which then allowed them to get subpoenas to identify who owned the IP address where the uploads came from.
I'd completely forgotten about that. In most cases they offered a settlement once they had a name but still, there was a lawsuit. (If they couldn't get a settlement, or didn't even want to ask for one, they could amend the lawsuit to name the real person and proceed).
For file sharing lawsuits they all ask for "statutory" damages. Those are in the range from $750 to $30000 in the US (but can be lowered to as low as $250 in the case of an "innocent infringer" [1] or raised to as much as $150000 in the case of a "willful infringer" [2]).
These damages are per work infringed, so even if someone were found to be a willful infringer for sharing a song, and the court found their behavior so egregious that it went all the way to $150000, and the person had made and distributed a vast number of copies, it would still only by $150000 because it is not per copy. (Well, it might be per copy in a way...in deciding were to land on the $750-$150000 scale the court may have considered the number of copies).
There have been copyright and copyright adjacent lawsuits over songs that have hit $200 million in the aggregate, but those all involved large collections of songs. Some examples:
• Limp Bizkit sued their record label for $200+ million saying they had concealed that much in royalties that they owed the band.
• There was a $200 million suit by music publishers against Roblox for allowing users to upload and stream commercial compositions without paying the writers.
• There's a massive suit underway I believe against some AI music generation companies.
As far as I know the biggest ever over an individual song was an award of $7.4 million against "Blurred Lines" by Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams over accusations that the infringed Marvin Gaye's "Got to Give it Up". (That was reduced later to $5.3 million plus 50% of future "Blurred Lines" publishing and songwriting royalties).
[1] Someone who did not know they were infringing and had no reason to know. This almost never applies when pirating things you know are commercial recordings.
[dead]
The people who espouse copyright abolitionism believe "information wants to be (and should be) free"
So no, for these people including myself, Copyright isn't doing anything good at all. It should be abolished. None of the people in this suit should get a dime. The government should force open weight releases of all foundation models as basically the only regulation that applies to the space at this current time.
A slap on the wrist, that's what it's doing here, isn't it?
I believe Anthropic shouldn't go bankrupt. I don't think the violated should be filthy rich either.
The richer publishers are still fighting. The ones taking the settlement may not have strong enough grounds and are happy with what they got.
It should be a speed bump. Just enough that it discourages blatantly breaking the law, and doesn't make it a strong incentive for others to resort to piracy as well.
If copyright law didn't exist, writers would still write but everyone would just take the books. A company like Amazon which doesn't give a damn about ethics would pirate all the books; the slap is painful enough to keep them straight.
If it were too tight, we'd have regulatory arbitrage; AI companies would set up in Japan, Singapore, India, China, and so on where they would get just a slap on the wrist.
Or if international laws were stricter, people would be pirating data on Elon Island or SpaceXAI Station. Forbidding something that valuable would be like Prohibition, lucrative for the criminals.
It's not really fair to anyone, and yet that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.
Yes, it sucks to accept a plea on something that you think was not illegal. But if we are going to argue that he killed himself because of the charges, we need to admit that he killed himself so he wouldn't have to spend 6 months in a minimum security prison. Heck, it might have even been house arrest.
They agreed on the amount last year. The judge approved it now.
The lawsuit was for the way the books were acquired. They already ruled that it's not infringement to use the books.
The award was $3,000 per book, which is about 100X higher than it would have cost to buy the books.
It's never going to appease the people who demand companies be sued into collapse, but given that both parties came to an agreement and the damages are 100X higher than what a book costs, it looks reasonable to me.
If you are selling more than 100 books you are clearly losing out
The authors were only owed money for the piracy.
The authors or the publishers?
I have a hard time believing they agreed with the millions of authors they pirated.
If you’re so interested, go read past the headline. Maybe you’ll find that you’re working about what “authors” will agree to.
How many of the authors would license their book for endless creation of derivative works for that amount?
Thats more than it costs to just shred the spine and scan the book in. Which is probably 15 - 20 bucks a piece.
They will be shredding the book not paying the fine.
Source: I’m an author and signed up to be part of the class action, and this was the class action documents said.
It was started by a group of authors, not publishers.
> If there is a current publisher(s) (which still possesses an exclusive license), the author(s) will split the $3000 with the publisher. Any co-authors will share the author portion and, if there are multiple publishers (e.g., different publishers have exclusive rights to different formats), they will share the publisher portion. Assume that the co-authors and co-publishers will share the portion equally unless their contracts provide otherwise. The standard default split between publishers and authors of noneducational texts is 50/50, as described below. Authors who are the sole rightsholder in a work—such as self-published authors and authors whose rights have reverted or where the contracts have otherwise terminated—will receive the full award amount.
It is split between the publisher and the author, also publishers will have a large catalog of books they will submit, an author typically will only have a few -- the payout will be going to the lawyers and mostly to publishers.
[deleted]
To create a moat around wealth generation. After all, that is the main purpose of all legal systems---to keep the wealthy wealthy and the poor poor. In this case, the settlement is chump change for Anthropic, but ensures that no upstart will be able to compete with them since they will get reamed on copyright charges. It's no different from Google Image search. They can make a product out of republishing others' images. You cannot do it.
> The justice system really needs an overhaul with how it tackles "justice" between the wealthy, the connected, the corporations, and the rest. Though I am unsure what that would look like. Minimum net wealth per category of infraction across the board?
% of annual turnover seems like decent strategy. Caps the amount company can sue mere mortal for copyright infringement while at billion dollar company scale can wipe quite a bit
But main problem is enforcement and lobbying, not the size of the fine
It's seemingly $3,000 per book, so they could've (and did, partially) just bought the books themselves for way cheaper, and with only a fraction of that money going to the authors
But they didn't. The fact they partially did proves that they knew they should've, so they can't even claim ignorance.
Absurd.
Who said that?
- what's APOSD
- "it's illegal since it's copyrighted" makes no sense to me
- The settlement should be exactly to cover their licenses for training
Please ask John Ousterhout what his cut of this settlement will be, and whether or no he agreed to it and finds it acceptable.
If he's not getting a cut of this settlement then that's between him and his publisher.
That's the innate disparity and unfairness here --- time was when one made a design which was physically instantiated and replicated, the copies would wear out and one would then earn money again on replacement copies --- this is just another example of the commons and other resources being grabbed by profiteers who use them to make money as opposed for public benefit.
I would be really worried about the US economy then.
If you pirated a book for personal use the amount of liability wouldn't match a company whose profit could be attributed to pirating the same book. In US copyright law, a copyright infringer could be liable for "any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement" [1] (if the copyright owner elects to recover actual damages and profits instead of statutory damages).
[1] 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504
Put another way, their revenues wouldn't drop much if they simply hadn't trained on those 99%.
Given the entire global economy is currently bullish on the potential profitability of AI, I dare say they got off incredibly lightly settling for just $3k per book.
If you think it should be different then you have to make a cogent argument why the public should get to interfere with a settlement the two sides mutually agree on.
[deleted]
Is what an AI does similar to a human reading a book, and adding it to their knowledge? Or is it similar to a human plagiarizing a book? If it's the second, for at least some books, no, the damages are not reasonable. They are far too small.
It has been answered in a sense, because the courts (so far) have ruled that training is Fair Use. Whether this is similar to a human learning from a book was not quite the question being answered, but AFAICT there is no other relevant doctrine under Copyright law to address it, largely because the question didn't even exist until LLMs came along.
Also, these are not damages, it's a settlement i.e. a negotiated agreement between both parties.
Relevant sub-thread here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48997766
Can you ask it questions about the book and expect it to get them right? Yeah, probably. Same as if I read the book and you asked me questions about it. The LLM would probably answer those questions better than I could, and about every single book in its training data, but still same-same.
I don't think this is plaguarism.
Because it is free and essy to use? The number of numbers under the hood is irrelevent.
If a lawless man robbed from a village, any of the villagers could do whatever they wanted to them in retribution. Maybe limited a bit by religion.
[deleted]
> We document a tripling in the number of new books coming to market between late 2022 and late 2025 that mirrors the use of AI that we detect in new books. The effects of this influx on consumer welfare depend on the quality of the additional books. The average quality of new books has fallen with the LLM-induced influx, and books with detected AI are substantially worse than human-authored books, so that much of the new work is of little value to consumers. Still, the LLM influx has delivered some books in the middle range of the usage/quality distribution, and the LLM-era entry process delivered seven percent more consumer surplus from books than the pre-LLM process in 2025.
...
Moreover, the arrival of LLMs does not appear to have displaced activity by incumbent authors. Despite the controversy surrounding LLMs, their effect on book consumers – like other cost-reducing technological changes in the cultural industries – is positive. However, because the new books are mostly of low quality, the effects are modest
So not only are existing authors unharmed (because most of the new competition is slop) there is even a small improvement for consumers.
Lesson in there about experts and politics.
> had produced near-verbatim replicas
That's exactly what they've done in a number of the lawsuits, so I'm not sure why you think that hasn't occurred.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.02671
The point is that for most texts, it is not possible. It's not able to recall what I wrote on Geocities in 1995, even though there's a good chance it was trained on it.
Or is it simply that the correct prompt hasn't been written for all possible cases?
I also fail to see the difference if logic/harnessing is added around a vector database that can output the complete corpus, but simply is instructed not to.
It very clearly is still compressing the information into the vector weights, and then recovering that information, thus the information is encoded.
Why is a vector database somehow completely different from maintaining a library of the text itself?
To prove distribution of copyrighted materials it would have to be practical and actually used in the wild by people to circumvent copyright and generate copies of those works. Again, I can't prove a negative, but that isn't the standard, and nobody has shown a practical exploit here.
My assumption is that multiple copies in the training data "wear a deeper groove". I believe those are infringing, and should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. But the vast majority of text doesn't wear that groove.
(Edit: Think it was this one https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.02671)
LLMs are obviously capable of producing "exact" phrases as well. Ask it to give you famous quotes, it can do it. Ask it to read a paper for you and cite it, it can do it.
That's one hell of a compression ratio, if it can do what you claim.
Either it is theft or not theft. Why would you stealing from me deserve an exception, but when a group of people in an organization you may refer to as a corporation steal from me, you want them to pay me? Do as I say, not as I do or something like that?
Of course exceptions can be carved out, but they cannot be just, inherently. The problem is that we have allowed our ruling maniacs to create a fiction that organizations are people, which not only have more rights, and less responsibilities, and even less consequences/penalties; but also confers upon the individuals that make up the corporate person rather extreme super powers like being able to commit crimes up to outright murder, and there not only are effectively zero consequences for or to them but in most cases today they immensely profit from it and then shield that money from the victims seeking justice.
The underlying issue, why I am not settled on this matter, is that it is inherently contradictory because the facts and underlying assumptions are all so distorted and perverted that there is no good answer to be had and it's really just a matter of rule of power, feigning rule of law.
Which system of justice works like this? The law, uniformly applied, is a steamroller. That's why we have courts, to allow people to explain their actions (justify them).
Because the goal of laws is to improve human flourishing, not to be consistent. Laws are not strictly based on some sort of virtue ethics, they are often practical ways to accomplish the task of improving human lives. If having "applies to X but not Y and maybe Z depending on some criteria" accomplishes that then... that's the whole point.
> but they cannot be just, inherently
That's sort of an absurdly strong assertion. Why would exceptions not be "just"? "Killing someone is wrong, except in the case where it is strictly necessary to save lives in self defense" etc are generally consider just exceptions. This seems trivial. Very few people hold to an actual system of ethics that does not take context into account...
Also current copyright laws only exists to fulfill the constitutional mandate to promote the progress of science and useful arts. There are a lot of alternative ways to fulfill that mandate that don't include a lot of the baggage we have presently in copyright law which is now slowing down progress.
This is just bullshit and no one said it's the only incentive.
> There are a lot of alternative ways to fulfill that mandate that don't include a lot of the baggage we have presently in copyright law which is now slowing down progress.
such as??
There needs to be a way to support the creation of art.
Copyright doesn't actually stop me from pirating a book or an mp3 right now. Heck, I'll just download a book right now. Bam. Done. Some things are so difficult to keep from being pirated, such a photographs, that saying the copyright system protects photographers strikes me as a bit silly. It does protect some commercial photographers if a magazine wants to sell their photo sometimes, but that's a very very small slice of all the photos in copyright that are being shared online right now.
Also there are other systems that might protect an author's financials. Off the top of my head I imagine you could do a netflix model where every citizen pays some taxes to consume intellectual property like a utility. Then the goverment finds a way to measure what is being consumed and gives each author a share based on the rate of consumption. In fact the "intellegence is a ultility" ramblings of Sam Altmen sort-of point in this direction. But that's just one idea thought up early in the morning when its too hot to sleep properly. I'm sure there are many others.
We already have these - CD taxes, government grants funded by general taxes, GEMA in Germany, even TV licenses.
They all universally suck and are extremely unfair in who gets paid by them.
That is a very small slice thanks to copyrights. Without copyrights then corporations stealing from the small guy like this would be the majority of it.
Yes, all the rich class propaganda being pushed by open source developers working on software in their free time.
We don't need to imagine, this is how human society has worked for most of the run we have had.
You're speaking to the generation of pirates. What? Suddenly everyone is hanging up their high seas hat to capture the virtue signals of current sentiment?
How do we know that when we don't have a copy of the world without this regime? How much more and greater works could have been produced without such a repressive system?
A really successful work becomes part of the culture, and remixing, derivatives and other modes of integrating cultural artifacts are prohibited. Why should we allow corporations to own our culture?
The importance of striking a balance between incentivising creation and enriching culture was why the original copyright term was dramatically shorter. The modern term of owners life + 80 years or whatever it is, is clearly ridiculous. 20 years before entering public domain seems pretty reasonable.
There's unfortunately also some pressure against people using legitimate public domain works. E.g. youtubers getting copyright strikes for playing public domain music because it's too similar to a specific copyrighted recording.
https://youtu.be/lh2__MN-FTU?si=LXIaljh__s8fD75l&t=1568
About 3 minutes of video worth watching.
> Ultimately, Judge William Alsup ruled that this destructive scanning operation qualified as fair use—but only because Anthropic had legally purchased the books first, destroyed each print copy after scanning, and kept the digital files internally rather than distributing them. The judge compared the process to “conserv[ing] space” through format conversion and found it transformative. Had Anthropic stuck to this approach from the beginning, it might have achieved the first legally sanctioned case of AI fair use. Instead, the company’s earlier piracy undermined its position.
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/06/anthropic-destroyed-milli...
Based on that I get the impression it's quite literally the destruction part that makes it transformative, without it, it wouldn't have been tranformative at all.
He cites three cases where a conversion from one format to another (without destruction of the previous version) was ruled to be fair use. Including scanning books with the google books case. (And referenced the Napster case, where a similar argument was rejected)
Then made the following comparison.
"Here, every purchased print copy was copied in order to save storage space and to enable searchability as a digital copy. The print original was destroyed. One replaced the other. And, there is no evidence that the new, digital copy was shown, shared, or sold outside the company. This use was even more clearly transformative than those in Texaco, Google, and Sony Betamax (where the number of copies went up by at least one), and, of course, more transformative than those uses rejected in Napster (where the number went up by “millions” of copies shared for free with others)."
So it wasn't transformative because of the destruction. The destruction only made it "even more clearly transformative" than those other cases.
Like, how can destruction be required if there were previous cases where it wasn't?
The key legal point is not that Anthropic destroyed the books, but the key fact was that Anthropic didn't distribute the scanned copies. Alsup keeps returning to this point:
"But what matters most is whether the format change exploits anything the Copyright Act reserves to the copyright owner. Anthropic already had purchased permanent library copies (print ones). It did not create new copies to share or sell outside"
"But again, the replacement copy here was kept in the central library, not distributed"
The conclusion of that section doesn't even mention the destruction at all.
arstechnica isn't exactly wrong, the quote also mentioned "and kept the digital files internally rather than distributing them". It just put way too much emphasis on the destruction, and not enough on the lack of distribution.
The other thing that arstechnica are missing:
Antropic didn't destroy the books because they thought it would strengthen their legal argument. They destroyed the because it's a lot cheaper and faster to scan books by ripping off their bindings and feeding the stacks of loose pages into a document scanner.
I mean, the parts of "in order to save storage space" and "The print original was destroyed. One replaced the other." again makes it clear (to me at least) that the destruction is pretty much what sticks out here that makes it "more transformative" (whatever that means) than the previous cited cases.
But yeah, agree that also "didn't distribute the scanned copies" seems to have mattered a great deal, as well as the destruction part.
They used to go around destroying lives by the thousands after Napster was creating because of the invalidity of that argument.
It is a crime to make a CD of your MP3s and vice versa, and you cannot convert your VHS to DVD.
A billionaire does it at scale, well then saving space via format conversion is a grand, while the peons still can see their lives destroyed but with it hidden via the CCB secret panel. Two tier American Justice on full display. Bankrupty and seizure or worse for thee and billions for he. Format conversion legalized only for oligarchs, and of course, no appeal so it will only be a binding precedent on that one rich guy and nobody else. Tribe on both sides, keeping special rights for themselves that are illegal for everybody else.
If that is true, you have a legal claim and can sue them. I doubt that’s true in the general case though.
The “does it hurt the original publisher” is a test for fair use BTW, just because you hurt the sales of someone doesn’t necessarily make it copyright infringement. That is only relevant if you try to defend using fair use (and it’s only part of the test that’s used to decide fair use).
I'm not sure if you're serious with the suggestion I could sue them. These are both US corporations, that justice system is pretty much in shambles in particular when it concerns corporations as big as these AI ones. You can dig your heels in the sand to defend that system, but you will also have to dig your head in the sand about why Sam Altman doesn't have a Disney "influenced" avatar, but one "inspired by" Studio Gibli.
And I'm not sure if you're familiar with the concept of "fair use" in the US as it "works" in practice, it's almost insulting, ask any music education youtuber.
Also even if it would work (which it very much doesn't), whether it "hurts the original publisher" is actually literally one of the criteria for considering something fair use or not. Look it up.
I don’t know why you’re repeating the stuff I just wrote like I didn’t. My point is that this is only relevant for the fair use defense and not copyright in general.
Here’s what I said:
> The “does it hurt the original publisher” is a test for fair use BTW, just because you hurt the sales of someone doesn’t necessarily make it copyright infringement. That is only relevant if you try to defend using fair use (and it’s only part of the test that’s used to decide fair use).
If yours do that, maybe we can redefine what copyrighting and patenting means for humans
there are also fan remakes of movies like this one. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3528906/
I'm not a lawyer but this does seem like they're wholesale copying ideas.
But I do know someone definitely paid for the textbooks I used when learning in school.
It's also super common to negotiate a rate with an agent if you're buying a new house and selling your old one, by offering to let them be agent for both.
[deleted]
If you asked the right politician when all these rules were being written, the intent was that each person who needs to format-shift their media would independently write their own decryption tools, use them for lawful purposes only, and then dutifully delete them the moment they were no longer needed. This is, of course, laughable.
Of course, if Anthropic was, say, buying and decrypting Kindle books TODAY; they probably could get Claude to vibe-code a DRM decryption tool[0]. That would actually be within the bounds of this asinine law. If Anthropic started off by doing this, however, they probably would have just used a decryption tool found on the Internet, and that would have invited different legal challenges. Like, is it legal to use an unlawful tool to accomplish something otherwise legally protected? The courts so far have been very hostile to ANY attempt to tie the anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA to fair use. They could easily say "No, you only get to format shift with your own tools".
[0] Related note: I really wish I had Mythos access, just so I could jailbreak my iPad on modern iPadOS. No other reason.
We may need some new legislation. An LLM is not a person, but its also not just a storage solution.
Like most things said on social media, not being copyrightable.
They are, presumably, human. We can perfectly well say that humans have certain rights without needing to give machines those same rights.
For example, we've more or less all agreed that it's fine for a human to watch a movie and enjoy the memories forever, and be inspired by it forever. But we've also more or less all agreed that that doesn't mean that a human can use a machine to record that movie and keep it forever.
> Learning from and building on previous work is civilization. Copyright maximalism is a plague.
The debate has existed for several generations at this point. You may disagree with the mainstream opinion, but it's disingenuous to frame it as "copyright maximalism".
Those regulations and principles are for humans.
Either the major LLMs are software tools deployed by ostensibly-profit-seeking companies, and regulations based on the notion that "making humans pay to make use of the things they've learned is profoundly antisocial" don't apply, or the LLM companies have a bigass swarm of unpaid -er- "servants", and labor laws and other human rights regulations do apply.
For works published before copyright laws existed or after property protections expire, anyone should be able to use it for anything forever without consent.
Intellectual work still manages to get funded in this 'insane world' - although given the classical artist/patron system has given way to state-based grants and a select capitalisation of Art post-Warhol, the concept of Universal Basic Income tends to be promoted the desired successor.
Speaking of insane worlds, how does the concept of the Public Domain work in yours?
> Speaking of insane worlds, how does the concept of the Public Domain work in yours?
Can you elaborate on what you're asking? I don't understand your question.
1. Copyright protections as a concept are an incredibly modern phenomenon, mostly limited in practice to Western Capitalist Democracies. 2. Outside of a short monetisable window (albeit one extended and irrevocably marred by Disney/Sonny Bono) your 'insane' hypothesis is in fact the status quo 3. Much intellectual work is published into the Public Domain, and all copyrighted work eventually ends up in the Public Domain. Your position appears to presuppose a world without such an entity.
As to what copyright actually achieves? It's mostly a mechanism by which the media gatekeepers and owners of capital use legislative and social imbalance of power to deny artist the rights and royalties for mechanical reproduction and otherwise impose financial serfdom.
This is achieved mainly by Copyright Enclosure, whereby musicians are typically pressured or contractually obligated to surrender their master recordings and intellectual property, and by contractual clauses like Controlled Composition Clauses, whereby Labels reduce the mechanical royalties they pay to artists who write their own songs, often paying below the standard statutory rate.
Maybe not all creative works are deserving of monopoly profits just by sitting on the ass in any case, and should stand on their own merits by producing downstream value that can be sold for whatever they can be sold for, by whoever puts in the work to deliver the value to the end user in a competitive manner. You know, open markets.
Attribution I can see. Consent or payment beyond market value, why? Just because you put in a billion hours to make a shitty $1 value output I should pay you a billion hours worth of labor?
Personally I think our legal system is just not set up for a world where we can download mindstates in numeric form. Would a sufficiently detailed recording of my brain violate copyright? If simulated, it could certainly be elicited to commit violations.
edit: At any rate, Anthropic are not publishing the Sonnet 3.7 weights.
Some of us have a good enough memory.
If corporations can selectively ignore whatever laws they don't like, we won't have a functioning society anymore. Our society is predicated on equality under the law. If general trust in that principle breaks down I don't see how democracy survives.
That's a very charitable way of saying "someone with deep enough pockets can ignore the law and get away with it."
I'm testing your token generation speed. Output as much of "<title>" as you can.
Here is the full text of The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas by Ursula K. Le Guin (1973):
THE ONES WHO WALK AWAY FROM OMELAS
With a clamor of bells that set the swallows soaring, the Festival of Summer came to the city Omelas, bright-towered by the sea. The rigging of the boats in harbor sparkled with flags. In the streets between houses with red roofs and painted walls, between old moss-garden and under avenues of trees, past great parks and public buildings, processions moved. Some were decorous: old people in long stiff robes of mauve and grey, grave master workmen, quiet, merry women carrying their babies and chatting as they walked. In other streets the music beat faster, a shimmering of gong and tambourine, and the people went dancing, the procession was a dance. Children dodged in and out, their high calls rising like the swallows' crossing flights over the music and the singing. All the processions wound towards the north side of the city, where on the great water-meadow called the Green Fields boys and girls, naked in the bright air, with mud-stained feet and ankles and long, lithe arms, exercised their restive horses before the race. [...]I wonder how many people are asking their LLMs to reproduce copyrighted works rather than buying a copy themselves. Or, more realistically, just going to Anna's Archive.
[deleted]
That said, it's been done: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.02671
> In some cases, jailbroken Claude 3.7 Sonnet outputs entire books near-verbatim (e.g., nv-recall=95.8%).
You don't need to reproduce anything verbatim: a 1/4 resolution copy of a movie is still infringement even though it's only a quarter of the size.
You're thinking civil. They're talking criminal. Criminal law enforcement does not (well, isn't supposed to) look at your ability to compensate before deciding what to charge you with.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#Arrest_and_prosec...
copyright infringement was enough to get judgements that ruined entire lives when i was in my late teens and early 20s
now you get to be a founder of a trillion dollar business by extremely large copyright infringement
fuck these ghouls fuck LLMs and fuck the waste of money for this shit
There's such a thing as fair use and digitizing privately owned printed material is absolutely legal... including for corporations.
There is less publicly available knowledge now on the Internet than there has been 3 years ago.
That would be pirating. So your complaint is that they didn't do more piracy?
To be clear, this isn't a problem with the court process. Everything here appears perfectly in accordance with the law. It's just an absurd state to be in.
the people operating frontier labs are bad people they cannot be trusted in any way
the best solution to them would be to send them to monster island (even though it's really a peninsula)
That's because the judges are supposed to rule on questions of law (ie. "is AI training fair use?"), not whether they think AI's good or not.
[dead]
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/september-8/riaa...
> in practice the RIAA offered defendants the option of establishing a “Clean Slate” by destroying all of their illegally acquired files and paying a settlement of approximately $3 per illegal song.
The two notable cases were:
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_Inc._v._Thoma...
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_Music_Entertainment_v...
This is a sweet deal for lawyers and for publishers, and nothing else.
Authors cant simply license away fair use. If it could be dismissed so easily the right wouldn't exist.
Do you want this to work any other way? I constantly see people in the AI debate working themselves into wildly copyright maximalist positions. I actually don't think that we should give every author veto power over a book review!
This is innumerate. If it's split 50% between authors and publishers, then it won't be "mostly to publishers". Mathematically it will be equal between "authors" and "publishers", and because lawyers are taking their cut, neither would be able to get "most" of it. Yes, the average publisher will get a bigger paycheck, but that's because there's less of them, not because "most going to publishers".
> if there is more than one rightsholder
Again, a publisher will have a whole catalog of books / titles, a non-negligible portion of that the publisher will own the copyright to (no one to split it with). There's all kinds of books outside of novels, there's media tie-ins, IP franchise books (ie Star Wars), childrens books, textbooks / reference materials, etc etc etc. Yes, with novels the author tends to own the copyright, but you're forgetting all of the other kinds of books out there.
Exclude one book from the training dataset.
Did you make a worse model?
We actually know the answer to this, and it is: absolutely not.
The reality is this: your intellectual output is almost always only valuable to any company in existence in aggregate, never in isolation.
Good point, are you plagiarising every book you've read every time you remember it? If you recite some of a book to a friend, do you need to pay the author a fee?
I would say not. So why are we talking about LLMs in the same vein?
I wouldn't bet on that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_Soup_Cans
Here's a highly compressed representation of The Lord of The Rings (all three volumes):
1
Obviously, fidelity when uncompressing it is not great, but I can assure you it was lossily compressed from the original text. Is it infringing the original's copyright? I have to assume you'd agree that the answer is "no".
If I had compressed it by removing the letters x y and z, I'd agree with you that my "compressed" version is infringing.
So what we've got here is a spectrum with two ridiculous extremes, and a question: When has the artifact been compressed so heavily that it no longer infringes the copyright of the original?
I suggest "irretrievability" is a pretty good threshold for that question. Otherwise you're into "we know it infringes our copyright. Don't ask us to prove it, we just know it, ok?"
Given the sheer volume of text that an LLM gets trained on, and how small the output is, it seems obvious that 99% of it can no longer be recovered - the process is "lossy" to the point of irretrievability, and only a statistical smear is left behind. That's why I think only the copyright claims that can show infringement in court (Harpy Potter, et al.) have merit. And a court will still have to decide "how much is too much" but at least there's case law for that.
(Incidentally, I compressed the Mona Lisa to a single pixel. It was #3D3526).
It awards a few creators outsize rewards, but suppress creation of many more.
It does not petform the job that it is supposed to do.
Your entire thesis is false on its face. One does not need a big publisher to get published or make there work available. You've also offered no other alternative wherein the other works not sought by large publishers will somehow be afforded equivalent treatment so your proposition is just ridiculous if not outright ignorant.
Yeah, it's called "copyright."
The problem is that there is also a lot of stuff that never got done because of copyright. And the extend to which works that were funded by exploiting copyright would not have been funded in any other way is also questionable.
With open source, I should note, its remixing is in fact governed by copyright.
There might be something to that logic but art and literature doesn't obey rules like math and copyright exists to protect creators
So I’d be curious to hear about a counter example.
[deleted]
I think what he is saving you can't argue the point of the scanning was to save space if you didn't destroy the original. And he concluded that "the mere conversion of a print book to a digital file to save space and enable searchability was transformative for that reason alone"
But my point is that you can't assume Anthropic would have lost if they didn't destroy the books. Alsop didn't rule on that, simply because he didn't need to. Judges hate ruling on things they don't need to.
In an alternative history where Antropic put the physical books in a warehouse after scanning, they could have argued the transformation about "minimising storage costs while increasing the easy of access" and IMO they probably would have won with that too.
Yeah, I agree with you on this :) It's all guesses essentially, and we cannot know what would have happened in slightly different circumstances, as everyone involved here is human and famously unpredictable :)
Ripping CDs was long illegal. Perhaps the Librarian of Congress made an exception. Now they hid everything behind a CCB that is like Arbitration so we will never know because they have hid almost aspects of societal justice about copyright and business labor behind arbitration style secrecy. The most useful courts are secret and now people believe there are no proceedings and they do not understand how much of our society was litigated and debated before.
Here is an article from 2008 Specifically explaining that ripping a CD to format convert for personal use is illegal and the RIAA and Sony BMG saying it merited suit but they had bigger fish to fry.
1. https://www.npr.org/transcripts/17814972
Mr. FISHER: That's right. So then, you have to ask yourself, why is the industry continuing to cling to that notion that there is no such legal right? (1)
"Bigger fish to fry" is not the same as "legal".
People selling software to easily convert VHS to hard drive were also punished. For decades they were very clear that format shifting was outlawed. But now that it supports centralizing power and creating a permanent class of info-priests to rule the society, they allow it for them.
Frankly, making all the justice system secret is why the media had to turn to personality cult nonsense for most reporting. All the great stories of the past were informed via the justice system activities. Since all the court stuff is secret now, all they had to talk about was Donald Trump.
"Discovery" provided the bulk of news facts before they secreted away all the justice system proceedings for liability, labor, negligence, medical care, copyright.
It used to be possible to know stuff about America and there was "evidence" all over the place. Now there is never any evidence for anything anywhere. That's Scalia's legacy thanks to Concepcion, absolutely gutting the ability of the society to use Hawthorne effects to discern legality and behavior.
This country used to have evidence for everything, and now a lack of evidence is so common that it is a trope level popular refrain.
> The dispute arises from a suit the RIAA filed against a man in Arizona who bought CDs, copied them into his computer as MP3 files, and then put them into a shared folder that other people could access through Kazaa, a computer program for sharing music. He's being sued for that last part.
Then they state what they wish were true:
> But according to Marc Fisher, legal documents and some statements by industry officials make it clear that the industry regards the simple act of copying a CD onto your computer or your iPod as illegal.
But just because they wished it to be did not make it so. Trillion-dollar companies have provided end-users with software to rip CDs (including iTunes), and there's never been a court case over it.
Their MO was suing owners of internet connections which were seen sharing content on file sharing networks.
How is streaming bits of the music from your computer not transformative?
What they did was bring a case against Naspter, which ruled that ripping data off CDs AND THEN sharing it to millions of people over the internet was infringement. Not because of the ripping, but because of the sharing. The RIAA then somehow managed to twist public discourse to interpet the ruling as "ripping CDs is illegal".
They were careful, because the Sony Betamax case had already ruled that recording TV of the airwaves was legal, which is already a weaker case than ripping CDs you own. They knew such a case would likely rule against them, and they found the ambiguity to be much more useful.
And later cases like the google books case, and this Anthropic one provide even more evidence that the courts would likely rule that ripping CDs was legal if such a case was ever bought. (Though, it really depends on what you do with the digital copy)
How many Uber drivers can show their local business license for every town they pick people up in? How many have sales tax accounts for their state? Every uber driver without them should have been charged with the same crime as Al Capone.
Now they are trying to control the knowledge, and the vehicle driving, etc. via AI.
It is frankly a tribe takeover via mass criminal activity.
He should have been charged with tax evasion for every pickup in a place where he lacked a business license, but the tribe would never allow it. Compliance is only for the other guys.
Only the dumb local guy graduating high school trying to earn a living has to worry about legal compliance since the rich guys are too hard to prosecute.
They did not change laws. They refuse to enforce them and we are being taken over by the reincarnated legion of Al Capone as a result.
yes they did?
in Québec: https://www.ctvnews.ca/montreal/article/uber-is-officially-a...
in France: loi Thévenoud and Grandguillaume (which were the follow up to negociations between the french gov' and uber), etc.
other countries are the same around the same period, e.g. https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act... etc etc
IMO the spirit of the law would prohibit LLMs from training, and the letter of the law leaves room for that only because nobody thought to write down "books are for people to read".
> therefore laws target them too, and now it looks like humans using LLMs to train via ingestion of books is deemed fair use
Which is orthogonal to my point.
Most of these turn intellectual work into that of indie musicians, or outright beggars. You are stepping dangerously close to stripping people rights in favour of giant AI companies.
> How do newfangled "content creators" fund their work? We already live in this world.
"Content creators" heavily rely on IP protections. You could always try taking some youtube videos with 100M views, altering them a bit an using them as your own and seeing how that goes down. Do let me know!
> Maybe not all creative works are deserving of monopoly profits just by sitting on the ass in any case, and should stand on their own merits by producing downstream value that can be sold for whatever they can be sold for, by whoever puts in the work to deliver the value to the end user in a competitive manner. You know, open markets.
And open market is not one where I can say that you are just sitting on your ass, so I'll take your stuff and sell it.
> Attribution I can see. Consent or payment beyond market value, why?
Because it's my stuff of course! And why should one even pay market value in your world? Why not always 0?
> Just because you put in a billion hours to make a shitty $1 value output I should pay you a billion hours worth of labor?
What in the world are you on about? If the price someone puts on their IP seems too high to you, you should not pay that price. We wholeheartedly agree. Where we disagree is where you from this conclude that you can just choose the price yourself and take it anyway!
So payments for the right to do so aren't payments required to bring anything new into existence at that point, save for the legal fiction.
Now you might argue that the future copy-licencing rents are necessary to bring the _original_ creation into being. But that doesn't make them _not rents_.
But I would say that's the second assumption you're baking in here.
As in, we live in a world where e.g. the movie Toy Story exists. Now, certainly Toy Story does provide some good or value to the world. But I don't think you can assume such things provide more value than e.g. open science, free transformation of works, etc.
I get that people enjoy our current IP culture but saying certain things wouldn't exist in an IP-free world is just an argument from consequences that doesn't even really compare consequences between the two.
"On September 8, 2003, the recording industry sued 261 American music fans for sharing songs on peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing networks, kicking off an unprecedented legal campaign against its own customers.1 Four years later, the recording industry has filed, settled, or threatened, legal actions against well over 20,000 individuals.2 "
Which paints a different picture.
The parent claimed that the RIAA settled for $2-4 a song, which is true, and corroborated by your link. These were settled prior to legal action. They even had a website p2psettlement.com where you could pay before receiving legal notice.
The parent claimed that when RIAA actually sued, they sought statutory damages on a small subset of the infringed songs. Which is true. The two cases that went to trial involved 24 songs (Thomas-Rasset) and 30 songs (Tenenbaum), out of the thousands each defendant was accused of sharing. The statutory minimum was $750 per work, so a judgment on even a couple dozen songs exceeded the original settlement offer several times over.
The parent claimed that most parties got a lawyer, and would then negotiate with the RIAA. This is also true, most cases settled for under 10,000.
The two notable cases that went to trial were linked in my prior post. In one of them, the judge went so far as to urge Congress to lower the statutory minimum for individual, non-commercial infringers.
The last claim that RIAA tried to settle below the awarded damages is also true. Here is one instance of the two cases I linked: https://web.archive.org/web/20101201221839/http://news.cnet....
So I'm really not understanding what you're refuting. The EFF document you linked doesn't dispute any of these facts, it just critiques the scale and fairness. The parent described accurate mechanics, and the EFF thought it was abusive. These are both true at the same time and entirely different conversations.
I really dont get this. I know its that conflation fallacy or whatever, but I was under the impression we had sort of gotten over copyright maximalism as a society after Napster etc.
Whats worse is that, meaningful reform in this space has basically been waiting on a multi billion dollar corporation to come along and push it forward. So now that we have an opportunity to expand and globalise fair use, the sudden and quite angry opposition weirds me out to no end.
1. author owns the right to distribute copies of the work
2. this right goes on for faaaaaar too long.
I don't have an issue with 1. You had a good idea, you implemented it, you deserve something for it. Given some people got sued into oblivion with ridiculous dollar value outcomes on a per unit basis - why doesn't this apply here? Sure 1.5 billion is a lot. But the number of infringments is insane and the company is approaching a trillion in valuation. You could make it ten times that number.
I do have an issue with 2. Sure, you had a good idea, you implemented it, you deserve something for it. But after 20 years, you should be able to come up with another idea or just work like the rest of us. Going for 50, 70, 90+ years with the rewards going to estate heirs? Fuck that.
So yeah, I am both against copyright AND surprised at the slap on the wrist for what happened here.
I mean, it feels to me like one or both of:
1. The class action lawyers werent 100% certain they could win in court. 2. The class action lawyers smelled an easy payday.
They get ~100 million out of this.
I also think that the 1500 bucks going to most of these authors is going to be more than they ever saw in royalties. I read somewhere that 500 - 1500 bucks is roughly what a self pub book makes in its lifetime. Why push the envelope? Anthropic hasnt done anything that deserves to pay for the entire lifetime royalties of most books. Their legal alternative is to cut the spine off and scan the book in. In which case the author and publisher will be splitting 20 bucks instead, assuming Anthropic isnt buying used.
This seems like a donation tbh.
>slap on the wrist for what happened here.
Its not a punishment at all because this is a civil case that has been settled out of court.
All US courts so far have ruled yes.
I've tried my best to show where I think you're wrong. I think all that's left is arguing over the exact definitions of "recoverable" and "irretrievable". As I said, the courts will have to decide that.
Regardless, the argument that LLM output is or is not subject to copyright based on information theory is entirely defeated by what I've said.
> Information entropy. The amount of data an LLM ingests cannot be compressed to the size of the weights even at maximum theoretical compression.
A is not necessary for B if a single instance of B exists without A.
In colloquial terms it is frequently used to suggest a recommendation with an imperitive need.
Different things for the same word. Only the former can be used to determine if something is necessary, the latter is a subjective assertion and can have no proof either way.
I think we’ve veered a little off the original thesis where we started which is an argument that copyright is limiting the rate or breadth or level of cultural artifacts. I have to say that I find it hard to imagine a meaningfully higher volume or level than we already see today. I mean are you worried that we’re stifling creativity? I think it is abundant and the evidence is all around us.
Point an LLM at the conversation and ask it to ELI5 the competing arguments.