6 ms·
Here is how individuals are treated for massive copyright infringement: https://investors.autodesk.com/news-releases/news-release-details/california-man-senten
by bgwalter 1y ago
Here is how individuals are treated for massive copyright infringement:
https://investors.autodesk.com/news-releases/news-release-details/california-man-sentenced-more-seven-years-software-copyright https://investors.autodesk.com/news-releases/news-release-de...
- piker 1y agoI thought you'd go with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Swartz
- dialup_sounds 1y agoSwartz wasn't charged with copyright infringement.
- natch 1y ago*technically
- kube-system 1y agoIf you're discussing law, an entirely different law in a different title of US code is more than a technicality.
- piker 1y agoNo, the parent was referring to how someone “was treated”, and it would have been perfectly valid to reference that case to make the same point. What you’re saying is like calling Al Capone a tax cheat. Nonsense. They went after Aaron over copyright.
- dialup_sounds 1y agoUnlike much of the post hoc hagiography around Swartz, it's literally true.
- arandomhuman 1y agoNo but he coincidentally passed away after he was accused of it.
- kube-system 1y agoNo, the CFAA was the law that had him facing 35 years in prison and $1m+ fines. It wasn't a copyright case.
- tzs 1y agoHe wasn't facing anywhere near that. When the DOJ charges someone with a set of charges they like to say in the press release that the person is facing N years, where they get N by simply adding up the maximums for each charge that it is possible for a hypothetical defendant that has all the possible sentence enhancing factors to get. They also ignore that some charges group for sentencing--your sentence for the group is the maximum sentence for the individual charges in the group. Here's an article explaining in more detail [1]. Most experts say that if Swartz had gone to trial and the prosecution had proved everything they alleged and the judge had decided to make an example of Swartz and sentence harshly it would have been around 7 years. Swartz's own attorney said that if they had gone to trail and lost he thought it was unlikely that Swartz would get any jail time. Swartz also had at least two plea bargain offers available. One was for a guilty plea and 4 months. The other was for a guilty plea and the prosecutors would ask for 6 months but Swartz could ask the judge for less or for probation instead and the judge would pick. [1] https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-eleventy-million-years/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc...
- kube-system 1y agoYes, I meant "up to" that amount, which is implied when many people say "facing" before a trial happens. But it's not really relevant to my point, which was that it wasn't a copyright case.
- chourobin 1y agocopyright is not the same as piracy
- asadotzler 1y agopiracy isn't a thing, except on the high seas. what you're thinking about is copyright violation.
- downrightmike 1y agoYup, piracy sounds better than copyright violation. “Piracy” is mostly a rhetorical term in the context of copyright. Legally, it’s still called infringement or unauthorized copying. But industries and lobbying groups (e.g., RIAA, MPAA) have favored “piracy” for its emotional weight.
- collingreen 1y agoEmotional weight or because it's intentionally misleading.
- admissionsguy 1y agoDoes piracy have negative connotations? I thought everyone thought pirates were cool
- accrual 1y agoEveryone but the person(s) affected by the pirates, I suppose.
- downrightmike 1y agoReally that is just the hollywood version of pirates
- downrightmike 1y agoI'll also point out that the Nazi hunters were able to bring the fugitive nazis to justice because the nazis were declared as pirates aka "enemies of humanity" File sharing is not that.
- nh23423fefe 1y agoWhat point are you making? 20 years ago, someone sold pirated copies of software (wheres the transformation here) and that's the same as using books in a training set? Judge already said reading isnt infringement. This is reaching at best.
- amlib 1y agoAren't you comparing the wrong things? First example is about the output/outcome, what is the equivalent for LLMs? Also, not all "pirated" things are sold, most are in fact distributed for free. "Pirates" also transform the works they distribute. They crack it, translate it, compress it to decrease download times, remove unnecessary things, make it easier to download by splitting it in chunks (essential with dial-up, less so nowadays), change distribution formats, offer it trough different channels, bundle extra software and media that they themselves might have coded like trainers, installers, sick chiptunes and so on. Why is the "transformation" done by a big corpo more legal in your views?
- nh23423fefe 1y agoits legal because a judge said so. your piracy apologetics are obviously irrelevant.
- amlib 1y agoThere are tons of injustices committed by the legal system, laws protecting big corporations in detriment to society is pretty common.
- JimDabell 1y ago> illegally copying and selling pirated software This is very different to what Anthropic did. Nobody was buying copies of books from Anthropic instead of the copyright holder.
- rvnx 1y agoAt the very least, they should have purchased the originals once
- arandomhuman 1y agoYeah, people have gone to jail for a few copies of content. Taking that large of a corpus and getting off without penalty would be a farce of the justice system.
- rockemsockem 1y agoBad decisions should not be repeated in the name of fair application.
- impossiblefork 1y agoThey actually should, because generally an equal playing field is more important that correct law. As an extreme example, consider murder. Obviously it should be illegal, but if it's legal for one group and not for another, the group for which it's illegal will probably be wiped out, having lost the ability to avenge deaths in the group. It's much more important that laws are applied impartially and equally than that they are even a tiny bit reasonable.
- haneefmubarak 1y agoI think GP's point is that you should always seek to apply the law correctly, hopefully setting precedent for its correct application for everyone in the future.
- farceSpherule 1y agoPeterson was copying and selling pirated software. Come up with a better comparison.
- organsnyder 1y agoAnthropic is selling a service that incorporates these pirated works.
- adolph 1y agoThat a service incorporating the authors' works exists is not at issue. The plaintiffs' claims are, as summarized by Alsup: First, Authors argue that using works to train Claude’s underlying LLMs was like using works to train any person to read and write, so Authors should be able to exclude Anthropic from this use (Opp. 16). Second, to that last point, Authors further argue that the training was intended to memorize their works’ creative elements — not just their works’ non-protectable ones (Opp. 17). Third, Authors next argue that computers nonetheless should not be allowed to do what people do. https://media.npr.org/assets/artslife/arts/2025/order.pdf https://media.npr.org/assets/artslife/arts/2025/order.pdf
- codedokode 1y agoComputers cannot learn and are not subjects to laws. What happens, is a human takes a copyrighted work, makes an unauthorized digital copy, and loads it into a computer without authorization from copyright owner.
- KoolKat23 1y agoAnd they are not selling this or distributing this. The model is very different.
- cmiles74 1y agoI have to disagree, without all the copyrighted input data there would be no output data for these companies to sell. This output data is the product and they are distributing it for dollars.
- Aurornis 1y ago> Here is how individuals are treated for massive copyright infringement: When I clicked the link, I got an article about a business that was selling millions of dollars of pirated software. This guy made millions of dollars in profit by selling pirated software. This wasn't a case of transformative works, nor of an individual doing something for themselves. He was plainly stealing and reselling something.
- ysofunny 1y agobefore breaking the law, set up a corporation to absorb the liability! in other words, provided you have enough spare capital to spin up a corporation, you can break the law!!!!
- stocksinsmocks 1y agoAnthropic isn’t selling copies of the material to its users though. I would think you couldn’t lock someone up for reading a book and summarizing or reciting portions of the contents. Seven years for thumbing your nose at Autodesk when armed robbery would get you less time says some interesting things about the state of legal practice.
- wmeredith 1y ago> summarizing or reciting portions of the contents This absolutely falls under copyright law as I understand it (not a lawyer). E.g. the disclaimer that rolls before every NFL broadcast. The notice states that the broadcast is copyrighted and any unauthorized use, including pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game, is prohibited. There is wiggle room for fair use by news organizations, critics, artists, etc.
- steveklabnik 1y agoI can say "you cannot read this comment for any purpose" but that doesn't supersede the law.
- Buttons840 1y agoBtu it is ilelgal to rveerse enigneer tihs porprietary encrpytion algroithm I cerated and uesd to encrpyt tihs mesasge.
- tpmoney 1y agoThey might say that, but it doesn’t mean it has the force of law behind it. Copyright does not cover and has never covered facts. So as much as the NFL might wish you can’t tell people what the final score of the game is, or describe the events of the last minute clutch play, they can’t actually prevent you from doing that because that’s not protected by copyright.
- zahma 1y agoExcept they aren’t merely reading and reciting content, are they? That’s a rather disingenuous argument to make. All these AI companies are high on billions in investment and think they can run roughshod over all rules in the sprint towards monetizing their services. Make no mistake, they’re seeking to exploit the contents of that material for profits that are orders of magnitude larger than what any shady pirated-material reseller would make. The world looks the other way because these companies are “visionary” and “transformational.” Maybe they are, and maybe they should even have a right to these buried works, but what gives them the right to rip up the rule book and (in all likelihood) suffer no repercussions in an act tantamount to grand theft? There’s certainly an argument to be had about whether this form of research and training is a moral good and beneficial to society. My first impression is that the companies are too opaque in how they use and retain these files, albeit for some legitimate reasons, but nevertheless the archival achievements are hidden from the public, so all that’s left is profit for the company on the backs of all these other authors.