42 pointsby BeetleB2 hours ago9 comments
  • ilamont38 minutes ago
    If you have the time, read the judge's response to the motion:

    https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.43...

    The big deal for publishers and authors is the payout per eligible title is $3k. For a traditional publishing contract involving one author, the amount will be split down the middle.

    The other thing which caught my eye is the judge slashed the class counsel's fee by half, from 12.5% ($187.5m) to 6.8% ($101m). The class counsel's unreimbursed litigation expenses were $2.6m.

    The three class representatives get just $15k each.

  • Varelionan hour ago
    I sincerely don't understand what the point of these laws are, when the cost of flagrant violations is no more than a slap on the wrist -- these really meager sums that serve as nothing more than something to point at and say "Look, we did something!"

    Cover-your-ass strategy, and nothing more. Who, besides the ones at fault, are ever happy with these mean-nothing fines?

    The justice system really needs an overhaul with how it tackles "justice" between the wealthy, the connected, the corporations, and the rest. Though I am unsure what that would look like. Minimum net wealth per category of infraction across the board?

    Edit: grammar

    • Aurornis39 minutes ago
      This is a settlement that the authors and Anthropic agreed upon.

      They agreed on the amount last year. The judge approved it now.

      The lawsuit was for the way the books were acquired. They already ruled that it's not infringement to use the books.

      The award was $3,000 per book, which is about 100X higher than it would have cost to buy the books.

      It's never going to appease the people who demand companies be sued into collapse, but given that both parties came to an agreement and the damages are 100X higher than what a book costs, it looks reasonable to me.

      • nadermx38 minutes ago
        This case did at least shed light on the fair use argument.
    • renloan hour ago
      the irony is that all of this money will go to rent-seeking publishers who won't pass it on to the artists; basically a dispute between the wealthy you're upset with
      • Aurornis38 minutes ago
        The lawsuit was a mixed blend of individual authors and publishers.

        It was started by a group of authors, not publishers.

      • robterrell34 minutes ago
        Not true. Individual authors could sign up for the settlement. One of my books was in there under my name.
    • datakanan hour ago
      Punishable by fine just means it's legal for a cost. If the fine is less than the profit then they'll pay the fine every time.
    • jaitsuan hour ago
      Because using pirated material is a civil issue, not a criminal offence?
    • Ritewutan hour ago
      The laws are for you and me not companies like Anthropic and Meta.
    • PunchyHamster41 minutes ago
      To keep users paying for content while companies do whatever they want - and if that's not the reason that's certainly an effect.

      > The justice system really needs an overhaul with how it tackles "justice" between the wealthy, the connected, the corporations, and the rest. Though I am unsure what that would look like. Minimum net wealth per category of infraction across the board?

      % of annual turnover seems like decent strategy. Caps the amount company can sue mere mortal for copyright infringement while at billion dollar company scale can wipe quite a bit

      But main problem is enforcement and lobbying, not the size of the fine

  • HackerThemAll2 minutes ago
    So... What about authors from other parts of the world? USA has settled a USA case and they think all is cool for the entire world. So americentric.
  • processunknownan hour ago
    Seems squarely in the "cost of doing business" category
  • jdlshorean hour ago
    To be clear, the issue is not that the books were used to train Claude, but that they were pirated.
    • EmoteSupportBot44 minutes ago
      A critical distinction, because they were going to to find terabytes of not pirated books to train on that contained the sum history of humanities knowledge /s
      • Aurornis33 minutes ago
        They actually did this.

        > Anthropic spent many millions of dollars to purchase millions of print books, often in used condition. Then, its service providers stripped the books from their bindings, cut their pages to size, and scanned the books into digital form — discarding the paper originals. Each print book resulted in a PDF copy containing images of the scanned pages with machine-readable text (including front and back cover scans for softcover books

      • qq6633 minutes ago
        They bought, scannned, trained from, and destroyed millions of paper books, which was ruled legal. This lawsuit was for training from LibGen.
      • amanaplanacanal39 minutes ago
        They could have purchased the books instead. It was easier to pirate.
  • nekooooo4 minutes ago
    $3k a book is so cheap.
  • persedes44 minutes ago
    Are "open" models exempt from that? Can imagine they used the same datasets.
    • curious_curios23 minutes ago
      Many of the open weight models are trained on outputs from these models (distillation)
    • wmf23 minutes ago
      Most open models are developed for profit so they should be equally liable.
  • exabrial2 hours ago
    that number is missing a zero or two in front of the decimal point
    • BeetleBan hour ago
      As was pointed out, the settlement is for piracy, not training. They had already ruled that Anthropic's use of copyrighted material for training fell within fair use.

      As such, if you pirated a book and had to pay $3000 for that one instance, I don't think you'd like it if I said you should have paid $30K or $300K instead. If anything, this is analogous to the ridiculous fines people had to pay when pirating music.

      (Not that I'm complaining...)

      • wgjordanan hour ago
        > As such, if you pirated a book and had to pay $3000 for that one instance, I don't think you'd like it if I said you should have paid $30K or $300K instead.

        If you pirated a book for personal use the amount of liability wouldn't match a company whose profit could be attributed to pirating the same book. In US copyright law, a copyright infringer could be liable for "any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement" [1] (if the copyright owner elects to recover actual damages and profits instead of statutory damages).

        [1] 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504

        • BeetleB29 minutes ago
          I would imagine that for over 99% of the books covered in this lawsuit, they're earning less than $3000 per book.

          Put another way, their revenues wouldn't drop much if they simply hadn't trained on those 99%.

          • ctippett16 minutes ago
            IANAL, but the parent comment quotes "any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement", which I take to mean it's the profit Anthropic stands to make based on its use of the pirated content that's recoverable.

            Given the entire global economy is currently bullish on the potential profitability of AI, I dare say they got off incredibly lightly settling for just $3k per book.

        • an hour ago
          undefined
      • trentoran hour ago
        Thomas-Rasset got 80k per song and Tennenbaum got 22k per song. The law says up to 150k per work. It was a gift.
        • xboxnolifes21 minutes ago
          Sure, but in any other instance of piracy, HN would call awarding $20k per pirated song insane.
  • FireBeyond2 hours ago
    Maybe they can give it in the form of expiring Fable credits.
    • BeetleBan hour ago
      So that the authors can use it to write their next books!