7 ms·
I'm trying to find the quote, but I'm pretty sure the judge specifically said that going and buying the book after the fact won't absolve them of liability. He
by superfrank 1y ago
I'm trying to find the quote, but I'm pretty sure the judge specifically said that going and buying the book after the fact won't absolve them of liability. He said that for the books they pirated they broke the law and should stand trial for that and they cannot go back and un-break in by buying a copy now.
Found it: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/federal-judge-rules-copyrighted-books-are-fair-use-ai-training-rcna214766 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/federal-judge-rules-c...
> “That Anthropic later bought a copy of a book it earlier stole off the internet will not absolve it of liability for the theft,” [Judge] Alsup wrote, “but it may affect the extent of statutory damages.”
- zoklet-enjoyer 1y agoDid they really steal if they didn't deprive anyone of their copy? I don't think copying is theft.
- badlibrarian 1y ago"Tell it to the Judge..."
- kjkjadksj 1y agoYou may not think it is but the law does.
- buildbot 1y agoThe law says it’s copyright infringement, not theft.
- axus 1y agoAgreed, the judge should avoid slang or even commonly accepted synonyms in an official ruling. The charge is not for theft. Substitute infringement for theft.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- hadlock 1y agoIt's copyright infringement, which is not theft, they're legally distinct in the eyes of the law. This is partly why the "you wouldn't download a car" copyright ads were so widely mocked.
- __MatrixMan__ 1y agoFun fact, they didn't have the rights to use the font they used for those commercials: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43775926 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43775926
- gghffguhvc 1y agoOr the music. It was originally made as a one off for a film festival. Movie industry defended the lawsuit over the music.
- fortran77 1y agoIt's fine that you think that way. But this is a discusion of the laws of the United States of America and ruling by American courts, not a discussion of your own legal theories.
- hnlmorg 1y agoThe GP isn’t talking about some edge case legal dilemma that requires a lawyer or judge to comment. It’s already widely documented that copyright infringement is legally distinct from theft.
- superfrank 1y agoThey stole from the amount they would have legally paid to buy a copy from the copyright holder. Think about it like sneaking into a movie theater and watch a movie without paying. The theater was going to play the movie anyway and, assuming it wasn't a packed theatre, I didn't deprive anyone else of their ability to watch. It's still theft because I'm getting something that costs money for free and depriving the theater of the money that they're owed.
- freejazz 1y agoThey also argued that they in no way could ever actually license all the materials they ingested
- dmd 1y agoI love this argument so much. "But judge, there's no way I could ever afford to buy those jewels, so stealing them must be OK."
- AnthonyMouse 1y agoThe argument is more along the lines of, negotiating with millions of individuals each over a single copy of a work would cause the transaction costs to exceed the payments, and that kind of efficiency loss is the sort of thing fair use exists to prevent. It's not socially beneficial for the law to require you to create $2 in deadweight loss in order to transfer $1, and the cost to the author of not selling a single additional copy is not the thing they were really objecting to.
- exe34 1y agoThat's right, so I can't individually discuss terms with each and every media creator, so from now on, I can just pirate everything.
- AnthonyMouse 1y agoNeeding a copy of one book you're going to spend a week reading has a lot less overhead than needing a copy of every book that you're going to process with a computer in bulk.
- recursive 1y agoI like to glance at the cover art. I can do ten per second when I really get into my flow state. Sometimes I read them also, but that's incidental.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- irthomasthomas 1y agoIs copyright in America different to Britain? There, it is legal to download books you don't own. Only distribution is a crime, which most torrenters break by seeding.
- rahimnathwani 1y agoWhat do you mean by 'it is legal'? Do you mean: A) It's not a criminal offence? B) The copyright owner cannot file a civil suit for damages? C) Something else?
- irthomasthomas 1y ago> Only distribution is a crime
- throwawayffffas 1y agoOnly distribution with the intent to make money is a crime. If you are doing it for free you are not criminally liable. Unless I am missing something.
- codedokode 1y agoAny distribution of copyrighted material can cause you a big trouble.
- rahimnathwani 1y agoWhat relevance does that have to the present case? The judge, in this civil matter, said there would be a trial. He didn't say anything about it being a criminal trial. The strings 'crim' and 'felon' do not appear in the ruling. We will have a trial on the pirated copies used to create Anthropic’s central library and the resulting damages, actual or statutory (including for willfulness).
- Aeolun 1y agoThere can always be a trial, even if nothing was done to warrant it. I think the distinction between civil and criminal trials is smaller in my home country. The fact that there is a trial at all implies that someone commited a ‘crime’.