Anthropic judge rejects $1.5B AI copyright settlement

(news.bloomberglaw.com)

290 points nobody9999 | 1 comments | 09 Sep 25 08:46 UTC | HN request time: 0s | 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 Intellectual property laws, patents, copyright, and similar protections feel outdated and serve mainly to protect established interests.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]▶

>>45190284 #

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 #

lxe ◴[09 Sep 25 23:32 UTC] No.45190985[source]▶

>>45190861 #

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 #

1. alok-g ◴[10 Sep 25 00:38 UTC] No.45191599{3}[source]▶

>>45190985 #

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?

↑