←back to thread

Anthropic judge rejects $1.5B AI copyright settlement

(news.bloomberglaw.com)
290 points nobody9999 | 4 comments | 09 Sep 25 08:46 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
atleastoptimal ◴[09 Sep 25 19:15 UTC] No.45187251[source]▶
Copying files of scanned books isn’t worth a 1T dollar fine
replies(1): >>45190002 #
adrr ◴[09 Sep 25 22:09 UTC] No.45190002[source]▶
Maybe Anthropic should have paid attention to the law that has $150k statutory damages per violation if the infringement is willful. So much cheaper just to buy the books and scan it instead of violating a law that has a statutory damage clause.
replies(3): >>45190212 #>>45190597 #>>45191505 #
eschaton ◴[09 Sep 25 22:58 UTC] No.45190597[source]▶
In general buying books and scanning them for this type of use would *also* be copyright infringement.
replies(1): >>45190652 #
1. adrr ◴[09 Sep 25 23:02 UTC] No.45190652{3}[source]▶
No. Thats fair use. Format shifting is fair use as affirmed by RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia which was about ripping CDs to MP3s.
replies(1): >>45190683 #
2. eschaton ◴[09 Sep 25 23:05 UTC] No.45190683[source]▶
…for personal use, just as timeshifting was with MPAA v. Sony. Neither were about commercial use/exploitation.
replies(1): >>45190979 #
3. adrr ◴[09 Sep 25 23:31 UTC] No.45190979[source]▶
Meta case just affirmed that training an LLM is fair use under transformative use. Alsom, Google's indexing(transformative use) of scanned books is settled law with Authors Guild v. Google.
replies(1): >>45193498 #
4. eschaton ◴[10 Sep 25 05:02 UTC] No.45193498{3}[source]▶
And Roe v. Wade was settled law too, until it wasn’t.