←back to thread

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

(www.businessinsider.com)
417 points pyman | 1 comments | 07 Jul 25 09:20 UTC | HN request time: 0.255s | source
Show context
trinsic2 ◴[07 Jul 25 15:16 UTC] No.44491270[source]▶
I'm not seeing how this is fair use in either case.

Someone correct me if I am wrong but aren't these works being digitized and transformed in a way to make a profit off of the information that is included in these works?

It would be one thing for an individual to make person use of one or more books, but you got to have some special blindness not to see that a for-profit company's use of this information to improve a for-profit model is clearly going against what copyright stands for.

replies(8): >>44491399 #>>44491424 #>>44491457 #>>44491657 #>>44492008 #>>44492099 #>>44493528 #>>44495414 #
1. protocolture ◴[07 Jul 25 22:55 UTC] No.44495414[source]▶
>clearly going against what copyright stands for.

Copyright isnt a digital moat. Its largely an agreement that the work is available to the public, but the creator has a limited amount of time to exploit it at market.

If you sell an AI model, or access to an AI model, theres usually around 0% of the training data redistributed with the model. You cant decompile it and find the book. As you aren't redistributing the original work copyright is barely relevant.

Imagine suggesting that because you own the design of a hammer, that all works created with the hammer belong to you and cant be sold?

That someone came up with a new method of using books as a tool to create a different work, does not entitle the original book author to a cut of the pie.