←back to thread

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

(www.businessinsider.com)
397 points pyman | 10 comments | 07 Jul 25 09:20 UTC | HN request time: 1.452s | source | bottom
1. piker ◴[07 Jul 25 14:47 UTC] No.44490942[source]▶
I thought you'd go with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz
replies(1): >>44491359 #
2. dialup_sounds ◴[07 Jul 25 15:26 UTC] No.44491359[source]▶
Swartz wasn't charged with copyright infringement.
replies(2): >>44491626 #>>44492395 #
3. natch ◴[07 Jul 25 15:52 UTC] No.44491626[source]▶
*technically
replies(2): >>44492823 #>>44495279 #
4. arandomhuman ◴[07 Jul 25 17:05 UTC] No.44492395[source]▶
No but he coincidentally passed away after he was accused of it.
replies(1): >>44492810 #
5. kube-system ◴[07 Jul 25 17:43 UTC] No.44492810{3}[source]▶
No, the CFAA was the law that had him facing 35 years in prison and $1m+ fines. It wasn't a copyright case.
replies(1): >>44493286 #
6. kube-system ◴[07 Jul 25 17:44 UTC] No.44492823{3}[source]▶
If you're discussing law, an entirely different law in a different title of US code is more than a technicality.
replies(1): >>44494363 #
7. tzs ◴[07 Jul 25 18:29 UTC] No.44493286{4}[source]▶
He wasn't facing anywhere near that. When the DOJ charges someone with a set of charges they like to say in the press release that the person is facing N years, where they get N by simply adding up the maximums for each charge that it is possible for a hypothetical defendant that has all the possible sentence enhancing factors to get. They also ignore that some charges group for sentencing--your sentence for the group is the maximum sentence for the individual charges in the group.

Here's an article explaining in more detail [1].

Most experts say that if Swartz had gone to trial and the prosecution had proved everything they alleged and the judge had decided to make an example of Swartz and sentence harshly it would have been around 7 years.

Swartz's own attorney said that if they had gone to trail and lost he thought it was unlikely that Swartz would get any jail time.

Swartz also had at least two plea bargain offers available. One was for a guilty plea and 4 months. The other was for a guilty plea and the prosecutors would ask for 6 months but Swartz could ask the judge for less or for probation instead and the judge would pick.

[1] https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc...

replies(1): >>44493390 #
8. kube-system ◴[07 Jul 25 18:40 UTC] No.44493390{5}[source]▶
Yes, I meant "up to" that amount, which is implied when many people say "facing" before a trial happens. But it's not really relevant to my point, which was that it wasn't a copyright case.
9. piker ◴[07 Jul 25 20:30 UTC] No.44494363{4}[source]▶
No, the parent was referring to how someone “was treated”, and it would have been perfectly valid to reference that case to make the same point.

What you’re saying is like calling Al Capone a tax cheat. Nonsense.

They went after Aaron over copyright.

10. dialup_sounds ◴[07 Jul 25 22:33 UTC] No.44495279{3}[source]▶
Unlike much of the post hoc hagiography around Swartz, it's literally true.