7 ms·

At least most pirates just consume for personal use. Profiting from piracy is a whole other level beyond just pirating a book.

pyman 1y ago
Someone on Twitter said: "Oh well, P2P mp3 downloads, although illegal, made contributions to the music industry" That's not what's happening here. People weren't downloading music illegally and reselling it on Claude.ai. And while P2P networks led to some great tech, there's no solid proof they actually improved the music industry.
- drcursor 1y ago
  Let's not forget Spotify ;) https://gizmodo.com/early-spotify-was-built-on-pirated-mp3-files-new-book-1795109991 https://gizmodo.com/early-spotify-was-built-on-pirated-mp3-f...
  - pyman 1y ago
    Those claims were never proved.
- Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
  I really feel as if Youtube is the best sort of convenience for music videos where most people watch ads whereas some people can use an ad blocker. I use an adblocker and tbh I think so many people on HN are okay with ad blocking and not piracy when basically both just block the end user from earning money. I kind of believe that if you really like a software, you really like something. Just ask them what their favourite charity is and donate their or join their patreon/a direct way to support them.
  - Workaccount2 1y ago
    If you are someone who can think clearly, it's extremely obvious that the conversation around copyright, LLMs, piracy, and ad-blocking is "What serves me personally the best for any given situation" for 95% of people.
  - timeon 1y ago
    I think that critique of this case is not about piracy in itself but how these companies are treated by courts vs. how individuals are treated.
  - x187463 1y ago
    And somehow actually paying for youtube which fully removes advertising and provides revenue to the service/creators is seen as an utterly absurd proposition by a staggering number of people.
    - akimbostrawman 1y ago
      Maybe because they don't want to reward Google for continuously running Youtube into the ground while still being worse than the free alternatives. Not to mention that they already watering down permium with premium lite, I give it two tears before you need to get premium+ to not see ads.
      - x187463 1y ago
        Then don't use the service? Use one of the 'better' free alternatives. Let's see how long they remain free once (if) they actually see a meaningful amount of traffic. Complaining about advertising while using a service for which you pay nothing is immature and unreasonable. I hate advertising and have done everything I can to remove it from my life. That means paying for services that I enjoy using. I would rather provide value to the business via money than ad attention.
        Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
        Yes, The amount of traffic that youtube can sustain is really wild. But yea one of the smallest nitpicks I have with them is the algorithm since its a hit or miss. Sure you can remove the algorithm completely but I would really wish if I could ask something like their SOTA AI models (Gemini) to make my algorithm for me right within youtube and I can say things like No clickbait etc.
        akimbostrawman 1y ago
        >Then don't use the service? Use one of the 'better' free alternatives you can use alternatives but those do not have the actual content that is the reason anybody watches youtube (its in the name). im also talking about free alternatives to premium being better for example offline videos still having DRM unlike every free yt downloader ever. the only way they have made premium better is by actively making the experience worse for everybody else is by pay walling the old default bitrate. >Let's see how long they remain free once (if) they actually see a meaningful amount of traffic there continues effort towards making the platform worse with every decision does not have anything to do with funding https://www.thetoptens.com/youtube/youtube-features-were-removed/ https://www.thetoptens.com/youtube/youtube-features-were-rem...
mnky9800n 1y ago
I feel like profit was always a central motive of pirates. At least from the historical documents known as, "The Pirates of the Caribbean".
KoolKat23 1y ago
This isn't really profiting from piracy. They don't make money off the raw input data. It's no different to consuming for personal use. They make money off the model weights, which is fair use (as confirmed by recent case law).
- j_w 1y ago
  This is absurd. Remove all of the content from the training data that was pirated and what is the quality of the end product now?
  - pyman 1y ago
    With Claude, people are paying Anthropic to access answers that are generated from pirated books, without the authors permission, credit, or compensation.
    - KoolKat23 1y ago
      There is no copyright on knowledge. If it outputs parts of the book verbatim then that's a different story.
      - pyman 1y ago
        Let's don't change the focus of the debate. Pirating 7 million books, remixing their content, and using that to power Claude.ai is like counterfeiting 7 million branded products and selling them on your personal website. The original creators don't get credit or payment, and someone’s profiting off their work. All this happens while authors, many of them teachers, are left scratching their heads with four kids to feed
        KoolKat23 1y ago
        That may be the case, but you'd have to have laws changed.
      - SirMaster 1y ago
mrcwinn 1y ago
> At least most pirates just consume for personal use. Easy for the pirate to say. Artists might argue their intent was to trade compensation for one's personal enjoyment of the work.
- Workaccount2 1y ago
  The gut punch of being a photographer selling your work on display, someone walks by and lines up their phone to take a perfect picture of your photograph, and then exclaims to you "Your work is beautiful! I can't wait to print this out and put it on my wall!"
- jobs_throwaway 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - SketchySeaBeast 1y ago
    The way you've presented this, the evidence is just "common sense", which isn't much evidence at all.
    - jobs_throwaway 1y ago
      wrong https://news.iu.edu/live/news/25720-the-hidden-treasure-of-digital-piracy-it-can-boost https://news.iu.edu/live/news/25720-the-hidden-treasure-of-d...
      - SketchySeaBeast 1y ago
        "Wrong" would imply somehow the first post was better that it was. What you mean to say is "You're right, here's a link with some details". That article also focuses on larger media and "moderate" amounts of piracy, so there's absolutely caveats in your claim. "As with other studies, Kim and his colleagues found that when enforcement is low and piracy is rampant, both manufacturers and retailers suffer." “'The implication is simply that, situated in a real-world context, our manufacturer and retailer should recognize that a certain level of piracy or its threat might actually be beneficial'..."

pyman 1y ago

Someone on Twitter said: "Oh well, P2P mp3 downloads, although illegal, made contributions to the music industry" That's not what's happening here. People weren't downloading music illegally and reselling it on Claude.ai. And while P2P networks led to some great tech, there's no solid proof they actually improved the music industry.

drcursor 1y ago
Let's not forget Spotify ;) https://gizmodo.com/early-spotify-was-built-on-pirated-mp3-files-new-book-1795109991 https://gizmodo.com/early-spotify-was-built-on-pirated-mp3-f...
- pyman 1y ago
  Those claims were never proved.
Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
I really feel as if Youtube is the best sort of convenience for music videos where most people watch ads whereas some people can use an ad blocker. I use an adblocker and tbh I think so many people on HN are okay with ad blocking and not piracy when basically both just block the end user from earning money. I kind of believe that if you really like a software, you really like something. Just ask them what their favourite charity is and donate their or join their patreon/a direct way to support them.
- Workaccount2 1y ago
  If you are someone who can think clearly, it's extremely obvious that the conversation around copyright, LLMs, piracy, and ad-blocking is "What serves me personally the best for any given situation" for 95% of people.
- timeon 1y ago
  I think that critique of this case is not about piracy in itself but how these companies are treated by courts vs. how individuals are treated.
- x187463 1y ago
  And somehow actually paying for youtube which fully removes advertising and provides revenue to the service/creators is seen as an utterly absurd proposition by a staggering number of people.
  - akimbostrawman 1y ago
    Maybe because they don't want to reward Google for continuously running Youtube into the ground while still being worse than the free alternatives. Not to mention that they already watering down permium with premium lite, I give it two tears before you need to get premium+ to not see ads.
    - x187463 1y ago
      Then don't use the service? Use one of the 'better' free alternatives. Let's see how long they remain free once (if) they actually see a meaningful amount of traffic. Complaining about advertising while using a service for which you pay nothing is immature and unreasonable. I hate advertising and have done everything I can to remove it from my life. That means paying for services that I enjoy using. I would rather provide value to the business via money than ad attention.
      - Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
        Yes, The amount of traffic that youtube can sustain is really wild. But yea one of the smallest nitpicks I have with them is the algorithm since its a hit or miss. Sure you can remove the algorithm completely but I would really wish if I could ask something like their SOTA AI models (Gemini) to make my algorithm for me right within youtube and I can say things like No clickbait etc.
      - akimbostrawman 1y ago
        >Then don't use the service? Use one of the 'better' free alternatives you can use alternatives but those do not have the actual content that is the reason anybody watches youtube (its in the name). im also talking about free alternatives to premium being better for example offline videos still having DRM unlike every free yt downloader ever. the only way they have made premium better is by actively making the experience worse for everybody else is by pay walling the old default bitrate. >Let's see how long they remain free once (if) they actually see a meaningful amount of traffic there continues effort towards making the platform worse with every decision does not have anything to do with funding https://www.thetoptens.com/youtube/youtube-features-were-removed/ https://www.thetoptens.com/youtube/youtube-features-were-rem...

mnky9800n 1y ago

I feel like profit was always a central motive of pirates. At least from the historical documents known as, "The Pirates of the Caribbean".

KoolKat23 1y ago

This isn't really profiting from piracy. They don't make money off the raw input data. It's no different to consuming for personal use. They make money off the model weights, which is fair use (as confirmed by recent case law).

j_w 1y ago
This is absurd. Remove all of the content from the training data that was pirated and what is the quality of the end product now?
- pyman 1y ago
  With Claude, people are paying Anthropic to access answers that are generated from pirated books, without the authors permission, credit, or compensation.
  - KoolKat23 1y ago
    There is no copyright on knowledge. If it outputs parts of the book verbatim then that's a different story.
    - pyman 1y ago
      Let's don't change the focus of the debate. Pirating 7 million books, remixing their content, and using that to power Claude.ai is like counterfeiting 7 million branded products and selling them on your personal website. The original creators don't get credit or payment, and someone’s profiting off their work. All this happens while authors, many of them teachers, are left scratching their heads with four kids to feed
      - KoolKat23 1y ago
        That may be the case, but you'd have to have laws changed.
    - SirMaster 1y ago

mrcwinn 1y ago

> At least most pirates just consume for personal use. Easy for the pirate to say. Artists might argue their intent was to trade compensation for one's personal enjoyment of the work.

Workaccount2 1y ago
The gut punch of being a photographer selling your work on display, someone walks by and lines up their phone to take a perfect picture of your photograph, and then exclaims to you "Your work is beautiful! I can't wait to print this out and put it on my wall!"
jobs_throwaway 1y ago
[flagged]
- SketchySeaBeast 1y ago
  The way you've presented this, the evidence is just "common sense", which isn't much evidence at all.
  - jobs_throwaway 1y ago
    wrong https://news.iu.edu/live/news/25720-the-hidden-treasure-of-digital-piracy-it-can-boost https://news.iu.edu/live/news/25720-the-hidden-treasure-of-d...
    - SketchySeaBeast 1y ago
      "Wrong" would imply somehow the first post was better that it was. What you mean to say is "You're right, here's a link with some details". That article also focuses on larger media and "moderate" amounts of piracy, so there's absolutely caveats in your claim. "As with other studies, Kim and his colleagues found that when enforcement is low and piracy is rampant, both manufacturers and retailers suffer." “'The implication is simply that, situated in a real-world context, our manufacturer and retailer should recognize that a certain level of piracy or its threat might actually be beneficial'..."