←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: 0.001s | source
Show context
lxe ◴[09 Sep 25 22:33 UTC] No.45190284[source]▶
Good. Approving this would have set a concerning precedent.

Edit: My stance on information freedom and copyright hasn't changed since Aaron Swartz's death in 2013. Intellectual property laws, patents, copyright, and similar protections feel outdated and serve mainly to protect established interests. Despite widespread piracy making virtually all media available immediately upon release, content creators and media companies continue to grow and profit. Why should publishers rely on century-old laws to restrict access?

replies(2): >>45190798 #>>45190861 #
tene80i ◴[09 Sep 25 23:21 UTC] No.45190861[source]▶
Because whenever anyone argues that all creative and knowledge works should be freely available, accessible without compensating the creators, they conveniently leave out software and the people who make it.

Moreover, IP law protects plenty of people who aren’t “established interests”. You just, perhaps, don’t know them.

replies(1): >>45190985 #
1. lxe ◴[09 Sep 25 23:32 UTC] No.45190985[source]▶
I make the software. I use free software and I contribute to free software. I wish all the software were free from all sorts of restrictions.
replies(3): >>45191190 #>>45191599 #>>45191746 #
2. tene80i ◴[09 Sep 25 23:52 UTC] No.45191190[source]▶
That’s great. But not exclusively, right? What about your salary, assuming you’re a professional in software? Do you still want that? I would argue you deserve it, but I also believe authors and other creators should be compensated. Too many people here argue for the software professional compensation only, conveniently.
3. alok-g ◴[10 Sep 25 00:38 UTC] No.45191599[source]▶
Is tbat saying that all software should be free? And extending beyond software, that all books, art, movies, etc., should be free to copy? Likewise, would it be fine for anyone to use any other company's logo?
4. okanat ◴[10 Sep 25 00:59 UTC] No.45191746[source]▶
If you are privileged and talented enough to make money purely out of free software, that's great!

However in most cases that money ultimately comes from being able to sell proprietary software and software-enhanced services. Many employers wouldn't pay for free software, if it wasn't helping their closed-source tech.

If bigger companies can enforce their "right"s as the owner of intellectual property, the smaller ones and individuals should be able to do so as well.

I discussed this rather recently in HN. The timelines for copyright is too long. They need to get shorter around 20-30 years for actual creative work.

I think software needs its own category of intellectual property. It should enjoy at most 10 years. Software is quite akin to machinery and mechanical designs can only get 20 years of patent protection. Considering the fast growing and changing nature, software should get even shorter IP protection. Similar to every other sector, trade secrets can continue to exist and employers can negotiate deals with software engineers for trade secret protection.