←back to thread

Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors

(www.nytimes.com)
989 points acomjean | 3 comments | 05 Sep 25 19:52 UTC | HN request time: 0.868s | source
Show context
petralithic ◴[05 Sep 25 20:54 UTC] No.45143482[source]▶
This is sad for open source AI, piracy for the purpose of model training should also be fair use because otherwise only the big companies who can afford to pay off publishers like Anthropic will be able to do so. There is no way to buy billions of books just for model training, it simply can't happen.
replies(9): >>45143523 #>>45143780 #>>45143876 #>>45144861 #>>45145004 #>>45145076 #>>45146993 #>>45147328 #>>45148584 #
dbalatero ◴[05 Sep 25 20:58 UTC] No.45143523[source]▶
This implies training models is some sort of right.
replies(3): >>45143539 #>>45143739 #>>45147172 #
542458 ◴[05 Sep 25 20:59 UTC] No.45143539[source]▶
No, it implies that having the power to train AI models exclusively consolidated into a handful of extremely powerful companies is bad.
replies(4): >>45144000 #>>45144660 #>>45144826 #>>45145555 #
johnnyanmac ◴[05 Sep 25 22:56 UTC] No.45144660[source]▶
It implies that people want everyone to do this when it's clear no one should do it. I'm not exactly a fan of "this isn't profitable for small businesses to steal from so we should make it so everyone should steal".
replies(1): >>45144729 #
petralithic ◴[05 Sep 25 23:04 UTC] No.45144729[source]▶
Piracy is not stealing. I don't know why everyone on HN suddenly turned into a copyright hawk, only big companies benefit from our current copyright regime, like Disney and their lobbying for increasing its length.
replies(4): >>45145085 #>>45145973 #>>45147026 #>>45147076 #
Aurornis ◴[05 Sep 25 23:53 UTC] No.45145085[source]▶
> only big companies benefit from our current copyright regime

You’ve never authored, created, or published something? Never worked for a company that sells something protected by copyright?

replies(2): >>45145359 #>>45145414 #
petralithic ◴[06 Sep 25 00:31 UTC] No.45145359[source]▶
All my works are open source or in the public domain. I don't like copyright for a reason.
replies(1): >>45187796 #
1. kiitos ◴[09 Sep 25 19:51 UTC] No.45187796[source]▶
"open source" and "in the public domain" aren't like separate things from "copyright", they describe specific sub-sets of stuff underneath "copyright", which is a top-level category that establishes a meaningful definition of stuff like "your work(s)" in the first place

i.e. "copyright" describes a legal concept, "copyleft" describes a licensing concept

replies(1): >>45207647 #
2. petralithic ◴[11 Sep 25 04:01 UTC] No.45207647[source]▶
The point is the legal concept is a fiction, useful perhaps in the past, but increasingly not today, and like all fictions, it can be dispelled if people agree to do so.
replies(1): >>45225940 #
3. kiitos ◴[12 Sep 25 19:46 UTC] No.45225940[source]▶
i mean sure if you're gonna take some epistemological position then every legal concept is a fiction, but that's not a particularly interesting nor useful angle on the discussion

or, to put it more succinctly, and quoting one of the great contemporary aphorisms: sure, and if my grandmother had wheels, she would have been a bicycle