24 ms·

Anthropic agrees to pay $1.5B to settle lawsuit with book authors

• on_meds 1y ago
  It will be interesting to see how this impacts the lawsuits against OpenAI, Meta, and Microsoft. Will they quickly try to settle for billions as well? It’s not precedent setting but surely it’ll have an impact.
  • SlowTao 1y ago
    That was my first though. While not legal precedent, it does sort of open the flood gates for others.
  • typs 1y ago
    Maybe, though this lawsuit is different in respect to the piracy issue. Anthropic is paying the settlement because they pirated the books, not because training on copyrighted books isn’t fair use which isn’t necessarily true with the other cases.
    • mschild 1y ago
      Didn't Meta do the exact same thing? https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/meta-staff-torrented-nearly-82tb-of-pirated-books-for-ai-training-court-records-reveal-copyright-violations https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intell...
  • nerevarthelame 1y ago
    Anthropic certainly seems to be hoping that their competitors will have to face some consequences too: >During a deposition, a founder of Anthropic, Ben Mann, testified that he also downloaded the Library Genesis data set when he was working for OpenAI in 2019 and assumed this was “fair use” of the material. Per the NYT article, Anthropic started buying physical books in bulk and scanning them for their training data, and they assert that no pirated materials were ever used in public models. I wonder if OpenAI can say the same.
  • lewdwig 1y ago
    I’m sure this’ll be misreported and wilfully misinterpreted because of the current fractious state of the AI discourse, but given the lawsuit was to do with piracy, not the copyright-compliance of LLMs, and in any case, given they settled out of court, thus presumably admit no wrongdoing, conveniently no legal precedent is established either way. I would not be surprised if investors made their last round of funding contingent on settling this matter out of court precisely to ensure no precedents are set.
• rvz 1y ago
  > A trial was scheduled to begin in December to determine how much Anthropic owed for the alleged piracy, with potential damages ranging into the hundreds of billions of dollars. It has been admitted and Anthropic knew that this trial would totally bankrupt them had they said they were innocent and continued to fight the case. But of course, there's too much money on the line, which means even though Anthropic settled (admitting guilt and profiting off of pirated books) they (Anthropic) knew there was no way they could win that case, and was not worth taking that risk. > The pivotal fair-use question is still being debated in other AI copyright cases. Another San Francisco judge hearing a similar ongoing lawsuit against Meta ruled shortly after Alsup's decision that using copyrighted work without permission to train AI would be unlawful in "many circumstances." The first of many.
  • Robotbeat 1y ago
    Wait, DID they admit guilt? A lot of times companies settle without admitting guilt.
  • f33d5173 1y ago
    If it was a sure thing, then the rights holders wouldn't have accepted a settlement deal for a measly couple billion. Both sides are happier to avoid risking losing the suit.
    • Ekaros 1y ago
      Also knowing how pro corporate the legal system is piercing the veil and going after everyone holding the stock would have been unlikely. So getting 1,5 billion out of them likely could have been reasonable move. Otherwise they could have just burned all the money and flipped what was leftover to someone else, with uncertain price and horizon.
  • emtel 1y ago
    They would only be wiped out if the court awarded the maximum statutory damages (or close to it). There was never any chance of that happening.
• deafpolygon 1y ago
  Honestly, this is a steal for Anthropic.
  • arduanika 1y ago
    Ha, this gave me a ripping good laugh.
• aeon_ai 1y ago
  To be very clear on this point - this is not related to model training. It’s important in the fair use assessment to understand that the training itself is fair use, but the pirating of the books is the issue at hand here, and is what Anthropic “whoopsied” into in acquiring the training data. Buying used copies of books, scanning them, and training on it is fine. Rainbows End was prescient in many ways.
  • therobots927 1y ago
    It is related to scalable mode training, however. Chopping the spine off books and putting the pages in an automated scanner is not scalable. And don't forget about the cost of 1) finding 2) purchasing 3) processing and 4) recycling that volume of books.
    • Onavo 1y ago
      > Chopping the spine off books and putting the pages in an automated scanner is not scalable. That's how Google Books, the Internet Archive, and Amazon (their book preview feature) operated before ebooks were common. It's not scalable-in-a-garage but perfectly scalable for a commercial operation.
      • knome 1y ago
        I remember them having a 3D page unwarping tech they built as well so they could photograph rare and antique books without hacking them apart.
      • therobots927 1y ago
        Oh I didn't know that. That's wild
      • hamdingers 1y ago
        We hem and haw about metaphorical "book burning" so much we forget that books themselves are not actually precious. The books that are destroyed in scanning are a small minority compared to the millions discarded by libraries every year for simply being too old or unpopular.
• arjunchint 1y ago
  Wait so they raised all that money just to give it to publishers? Can only imagine the pitch, yes please give us billions of dollars. We are going to make a huge investment like paying of our lawsuits.
  • non_aligned 1y ago
    You're joking, but that's actually a good pitch. There was a significant legal issue hanging over their heads, with some risk of a potentially business-ending judgment down the line. This makes it go away, which makes the company a safer, more valuable investment. Both in absolute terms and compared to peers who didn't settle.
    • freejazz 1y ago
      It just resolves their liability with regards to books they purported they did not even train the models on, which is all that was left in this case after summary judgment. Sure the potential liability was company ending, but it's all a stupid business decision when it is ultimately for books they did not even train on. It basically does nothing for them besides that. Given the split decisions so far, I'm not sure what value the Alsup decision is going to bring to the industry, moving forward, when it's in the context of books that Anthropic physically purchased. The other AI cases are generally not fact patterns where the LLM was trained with copyrighted materials that the AI company legally purchased copies of.
  • Wowfunhappy 1y ago
    From the article: > Although the payment is enormous, it is small compared with the amount of money that Anthropic has raised in recent years. This month, the start-up announced that it had agreed to a deal that brings an additional $13 billion into Anthropic’s coffers. The start-up has raised a total of more than $27 billion since its founding in 2021.
    • dkdcio 1y ago
      maybe I’m bad at math but paying >5% of your capital raised for a single fine doesn’t seem great from a business perspective
• MaxikCZ 1y ago
  See kids? Its okay to steal if you steal more money than the fine costs.
  • ajross 1y ago
    That metaphor doesn't really work. It's a settlement, not a punishment, and this is payment, not a fine. Legally it's more like "The store wasn't open, so I took the items from the lot and paid them later". It's not the way we expect people to do business under normal circumstances, but in new markets with new products? I guess I don't see much actually wrong with this. Authors still get paid a price they were willing to accept, and Anthropic didn't need to wait years to come to an agreement (again, publishers weren't actually selling what AI companies needed to buy!) before training their LLMs.
  • ascorbic 1y ago
    They're paying $3000 per book. It would've been a lot cheaper to buy the books (which is what they actually did end up doing too).
    • arresin 1y ago
      That’s not enough punitive damages for the crime (which is egregious and absolutely deplorable).
      • ascorbic 1y ago
        I wonder how many of the people saying this about copyright infringement today were complaining about the ridiculously harsh enforcement of it 10-15 years ago. They've just paid $1.5B for torrenting.
    • hananova 1y ago
      I'm sure the lesson they learned isn't to pay for the books in the future, but to not get caught in the future. In the business where all the value is in data, all they lost is a bit of money.
  • deleted 1y ago
• markasoftware 1y ago
  They also agreed to destroy the pirated books. I wonder how large of a portion of their training data comes from these shadow libraries, and if AI labs in countries that have made it clear they won't enforce anti-piracy laws against AI companies will get a substantial advantage by continuing to use shadow libraries.
  • somanyphotons 1y ago
    Perhaps they'll quickly rent the whole contents of a few physical libraries and then scan them all
  • gpm 1y ago
    They already, prior to this lawsuit, prior to serving public models, replaced this data set with one they made by scanning purchased books. Destroying the data set they aren't even using should have approximately zero effect.
• unaut 1y ago
  This settlement I guess could be a landmark moment. $1.5 billion is a staggering figure and I hope it sends a clear signal that AI companies can’t just treat creative work as free training data.
  • typs 1y ago
    I mean the ruling does in fact find that treating this particular kind of creative work qualifies as fair use.
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • HDThoreaun 1y ago
    All the ai companies are still using books as training data. Theyre just finding the cheapest scanned copies they can get their hands on to cover their ass
• petralithic 1y ago
  This is sad for open source AI, piracy for the purpose of model training should also be fair use because otherwise only the big companies who can afford to pay off publishers like Anthropic will be able to do so. There is no way to buy billions of books just for model training, it simply can't happen.
  • dbalatero 1y ago
    This implies training models is some sort of right.
    • 542458 1y ago
      No, it implies that having the power to train AI models exclusively consolidated into a handful of extremely powerful companies is bad.
      • JoshTriplett 1y ago
        That's true. Those handful of companies shouldn't get to do it either.
      • johnnyanmac 1y ago
        It implies that people want everyone to do this when it's clear no one should do it. I'm not exactly a fan of "this isn't profitable for small businesses to steal from so we should make it so everyone should steal".
        • petralithic 1y ago
          Piracy is not stealing. I don't know why everyone on HN suddenly turned into a copyright hawk, only big companies benefit from our current copyright regime, like Disney and their lobbying for increasing its length.
          • Aurornis 1y ago
            > only big companies benefit from our current copyright regime You’ve never authored, created, or published something? Never worked for a company that sells something protected by copyright?
• perihelions 1y ago
  https://archive.ph/wugNc https://archive.ph/wugNc
• non_aligned 1y ago
  I'm gonna say one thing. If you agree that something was unfairly taken from book authors, then the same thing was taken from people publishing on the web, and on a larger scale. Book authors may see some settlement checks down the line. So might newspapers and other parties that can organize and throw enough $$$ at the problem. But I'll eat my hat if your average blogger ever sees a single cent.
  • taejavu 1y ago
    The blogger’s content was freely available, this fine is for piracy.
    • non_aligned 1y ago
      This is not a fine, it's a settlement to recompense authors. More broadly, I think that's a goofy argument. The books were "freely available" too. Just because something is out there, doesn't necessarily mean you can use it however you want, and that's the crux of the debate.
      • ascorbic 1y ago
        It's not the crux of this case. This is a settlement based on the judge's ruling that they books had been illegally downloaded. The same judge said that the training itself was not the problem – it was downloading the pirated books. It will be tough to argue that loading a public website is an illegal download.
      • emtel 1y ago
        But you can use copyrighted works for transformative works under the fair-use doctrine, and training was ruled to be fair use in the previous ruling.
  • ascorbic 1y ago
    The settlement was for downloading the pirated books, not training from them. Unless they're paywalled it would be hard to argue the same for a blog.
• bikeshaving 1y ago
  For legal observers, Judge William Haskell Alsup’s razor-sharp distinction between usage and acquisition is a landmark precedent: it secures fair use for transformative generative AI while preserving compensation for copyright holders. In a just world, this balance would elevate him to the highest court of the land, but we are far from a just world.
• thinkingtoilet 1y ago
  Great. Which rich person is going to jail for breaking the law?
  • missedthecue 1y ago
    This isn't a criminal case so zero people of any financial position would end up in prison.
  • emtel 1y ago
    No one, rich or poor, goes to jail for downloading books.
    • mdp2021 1y ago
      Are you sure? I think in some jurisdictions they would, according to the law.
    • johnnyanmac 1y ago
      Tell that to Aaron schwartz
      • emtel 1y ago
        Swartz wasn’t charged only for downloading copyrighted material, he was also charged with wire fraud and breaking and entering.
    • thinkingtoilet 1y ago
      If I walked into a store and stole $1000 of books I would go to jail. If a tech company steals countless thousands of dollars worth of books, someone should go to jail.
      • emtel 1y ago
        Stealing physical goods is not the same as downloading copyrighted material.
  • 1y ago
• antihero 1y ago
  Isn't this basically what Spotify did originally?
• mhh__ 1y ago
  Maybe I would think differently if I was a book author but I can't help but think that this is ugly but actually quite good for humanity in some perverse sense. I will never, ever, read 99.9% of these books presumably but I will use claude.
• novok 1y ago
  I wonder who will be the first country to make an exception to copyright law for model training libraries to attract tax revenue like Ireland did for tech companies in the EU. Japan is part of the way there, but you couldn't do a common crawl type thing. You could even make it a library of congress type of setup.
  • tonfa 1y ago
    As long as you're not distributing, it's legal in Switzerland to download copyrighted material. (Switzerland was on the naughty US/MPAA list for a while, might still be)
    • Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
      Is it distribution though if someone trains a model in switzerland through downloading copyrighted material, training AI on it and then distributing it... Or what if not even distributing it but rather distributing the outputs of the LLM (so closed source LLM like anthropic) I am genuinely curious as to if there is some gray area that might be exploited by AI companies as I am pretty sure that they don't want to pay 1.5B dollars yet still want to exploit the works of authors. (let's call a spade a spade)
      • HDThoreaun 1y ago
        Using copyrighted material to train AI is a legal grey zone. The nyt vs openAI case is litigating this. The anthropic settlement here is about how the material is obtained. If openAI wins their case and switzerland rules the same way I dont think there would be a problem
        • Imustaskforhelp 1y ago
          This might go down (I think) to be one of the most influential court cases to happen then. We really are getting at some metaphysical / philosophical questions and maybe we will one day arrive at a question that just can't be answered (I think this is pretty close, right?) and then AI companies would do things freely without being accountable since sure you could take to the courts but how would you come to the decision...? Another question though So lets say that the nyt vs openAI case is going on, so in the meantime while they are litigating (lets say), could OpenAI still continue doing the same thing while the case is going on?
• nottorp 1y ago
  I thought 1.5 B is the penalty for one torrent, not for a couple million torrents. At least if you're a regular citizen.
  • taftster 1y ago
    Make sure to grab the mother-of-all-torrents I guess if you're going to go that path. That way you get more bang for your 1.5B penalty.
  • ipaddr 1y ago
    A million torrents would cost 1,500 each.
  • pavon 1y ago
    $150,000 statutory damages for willful infringement.
    • nottorp 1y ago
      So they only paid for 10k books?
• GodelNumbering 1y ago
  Settlement Terms (from the case pdf) 1. A Settlement Fund of at least $1.5 Billion: Anthropic has agreed to pay a minimum of $1.5 billion into a non-reversionary fund for the class members. With an estimated 500,000 copyrighted works in the class, this would amount to an approximate gross payment of $3,000 per work. If the final list of works exceeds 500,000, Anthropic will add $3,000 for each additional work. 2. Destruction of Datasets: Anthropic has committed to destroying the datasets it acquired from LibGen and PiLiMi, subject to any legal preservation requirements. 3. Limited Release of Claims: The settlement releases Anthropic only from past claims of infringement related to the works on the official "Works List" up to August 25, 2025. It does not cover any potential future infringements or any claims, past or future, related to infringing outputs generated by Anthropic's AI models.
  • privatelypublic 1y ago
    Don't forget: NO LEGAL PRECEDENT! which means, anybody suing has to start all over. You only settle in this scenario/point if you think you'll lose. Edit: I'll get ratio'd for this- but its the exact same thing google did in it's lawsuit with Epic. They delayed while the public and courts focused in apple (oohh, EVIL apple)- apple lost, and google settled at a disadvantage before they had a legal judgment that couldn't be challenged latter.
    • koolala 1y ago
      Wont Facebook just get sued for the same thing now and maybe set precedent?
      • hypercube33 1y ago
        I thought meta had been sued and forgiven as it was impulsive that they do it to make money and faced no charge.
        • lukan 1y ago
          This is what is confusing me here. I did not really follow any case, but as far as I remember meta seems to have gotten away with pirating books, but anthropic needs to pay $1.5B ?
• mooreds 1y ago
  Anyone have a link to the class action? I published a book and would love to know if I'm in the class.
  • hetspookjee 1y ago
    Deep research on Claude perhaps for some irony if you will.
  • gpm 1y ago
    Docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69058235/bartz-v-anthropic-pbc/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69058235/bartz-v-anthro... Proposed settlement: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.434709/gov.uscourts.cand.434709.362.0_7.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.43...
  • mooreds 1y ago
    https://authorsguild.org/news/what-authors-need-to-know-about-the-anthropic-settlement/ https://authorsguild.org/news/what-authors-need-to-know-abou... looks useful.
• r_lee 1y ago
  One thing that comes to mind is... Is there a way to make your content on the web "licensed" in a way where it is only free for human consumption? I.e. effectively making the use of AI crawlers pirating, thus subject to the same kind of penalties here?
  • Wowfunhappy 1y ago
    I'd argue you don't actually want this! You're suggesting companies should be able to make web scraping illegal. That curl script you use to automate some task could become infringing.
    • johnnyanmac 1y ago
      >I'd argue you don't actually want this! You're suggesting companies should be able to make web scraping illegal. At this point, we do need some laws regulating excessive scraping. We can't have the ineternet grind to a halt over everyone trying to drain it of information.
      • 1gn15 1y ago
        The GP was talking about web scraping, not "excessive web scraping". It's an important difference.
  • shadowgovt 1y ago
    I'm sure one can try, but copyright has all kinds of oddities and carve-outs that make this complicated. IANAL, but I'm fairly certain that, for example, if you tried putting in your content license "Free for all uses public and private, except academia, screw that ivory tower..." that's a sentiment you can express but universities are under no obligation legally to respect your wish to not have your work included in a course presentation on "wild things people put in licenses." Similarly, since the court has found that training an LLM on works is transformative, a license that says "You may use this for other things but not to train an LLM" couldn't be any more enforceable than a musician saying "You may listen to my work as a whole unit but God help you if I find out you sampled it into any of that awful 'rap music' I keep hearing about..." The purpose of the copyright protections is to promote "sciences and useful arts," and the public utility of allowing academia to investigate all works(1) exceeds the benefits of letting authors declare their works unponderable to the academic community. (1) And yet, textbooks are copyrighted and the copyright is honored; I'm not sure why the academic fair-use exception doesn't allow scholars to just copy around textbooks without paying their authors.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• usefulcat 1y ago
  Do they even have that much cash on hand?
  • gpm 1y ago
    They just raised $13B, so yes https://www.anthropic.com/news/anthropic-raises-series-f-at-usd183b-post-money-valuation https://www.anthropic.com/news/anthropic-raises-series-f-at-...
• cendyne 1y ago
  Now how about Meta and their questionable means of acquiring tons of content?
  • tomrod 1y ago
    Maybe it's time to get some Llama models copied before an overzealous court rules badly.
• golly_ned 1y ago
  > "The technology at issue was among the most transformative many of us will see in our lifetimes" A judge making on a ruling based on his opinion of how transformative a technology will be doesn't inspire confidence. There's an equivocation on the word "transformative" here -- not just transformative in the fair use sense, but transformative as in world-changing, impactful, revolutionary. The latter shouldn't matter in a case like this. > Companies and individuals who willfully infringe on copyright can face significantly higher damages — up to $150,000 per work Settling for 2% is a steal. > In June, the District Court issued a landmark ruling on A.I. development and copyright law, finding that Anthropic’s approach to training A.I. models constitutes fair use,” Aparna Sridhar, Anthropic’s deputy general counsel, said in a statement. This is the highest-order bit, not the $1.5B in settlement. Anthropic's guilty of pirating.
  • Ekaros 1y ago
    Printing press, audio recording, movies, radio, television were also transformative. Did not get rid of copyright or actually brought them. I feel it is insane that authors do not receive some sort of standard compensation for each training use. Say a few hundred to a few thousand depending on complexity of their work.
    • verdverm 1y ago
      Why would they earn more from models reading their works than I would pay to read it?
      • Ekaros 1y ago
        Because ones doing the training are profiting from it. Ai is not a human with limited time. And it is also owned by a company not a legal person. I might find argument of comparing it to human when it is fully legal person and cutting power to it or deleting is treated as murder. Before that it is just bullshit. And fundamentally reason for copy right to exist is to support creators and to promote them to create more. In world where massively funded companies can freely exploit their work and even in many case fully substitute that principle is failed.
• nextworddev 1y ago
  Wait, I’m a published author, where’s my check
  • gpm 1y ago
    The court has to give preliminary approval to the settlement first. After that there should be a notice period during which the lawyers will attempt to reach out and tell you what you need to do to receive your money. (Not a lawyer, not legal advice). You can follow the case here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69058235/bartz-v-anthropic-pbc/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69058235/bartz-v-anthro... You can see the motion for settlement (what the news article is about) here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.434709/gov.uscourts.cand.434709.362.0_7.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.43...
    • nextworddev 1y ago
      Thank you very much. There seems to be a lot of friction in this seemingly simple process…
      • gpm 1y ago
        For what it's worth the friction exists for a reason, conflicts of interest. The lawyers suing Anthropic here will probably walk away with several hundred million dollars - they have won the lottery. If they managed to extract twice as much money from Anthropic for the class, they'd walk away with probably twice as much... but winning the lottery twice isn't actually much better than winning the lottery once. Meanwhile $4500 is a lot more than $2250 (the latter is a reasonable estimate of how much you'll get per work after the lawyers cut). Which risks the lawyers settling for less than is in their clients best interests so that they can reliably get rich. Personally (not a lawyer or anything) I think this settlement seems very fair, and I expect the court will approve it. But there's definitely been plenty of class actions in the past where lawyers really did screw over the class and (try to) settle for less than they should have to avoid risking going to trial.
• ChrisArchitect 1y ago
  [dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45142558 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45142558
• bhaktatejas922 1y ago
  This weirdly seems like its the best mechanism to buy this much data. Imagine going to 500k publishers to buy it individually. 3k per book is way cheaper. The copyright system is turning into a data marketplace in front of our eyes
  • mgraczyk 1y ago
    It's a tiny amount of data relatively speaking. Much more expensive per token than almost any data source imaginable
  • daemonologist 1y ago
    I suspect you could acquire and scan every readily purchasable book for much less than $3k each. Scanhouse for instance charges $0.15 per page for regular unbound (disassembled) books, plus $0.25 for supervised OCR, plus another dollar if the formatting is especially complex; this comes out to maybe $200-300 for a typical book. Acquiring, shipping, and disposing of them all would of course cost more, but not thousands more. The main cost of doing this would be the time - even if you bought up all the available scanning capacity it would probably take months. In the meantime your competition who just torrented everything would have more high-quality training data than you. There are probably also a fair number of books in libgen which are out of print and difficult to find used.
• neilv 1y ago
  $1.5B is a nothing but a handslap for the big gold rush companies. It's less than 1% Anthropic's valuation -- a valuation utterly dependent on all the hoovering up of others' copyrighted works. AFAICT, if this settlement signals that the typical AI foundation model company's massive-scale commercial theft doesn't result in judgments that wipe out a company (and its execs), then we have confirmation that is a free-for-all for all the other AI gold rush companies. Then making deals to license rights, in sell-it-to-us-or-we'll-just-take-it-anyway deals, becomes only a routine and optional corporate cost reduction exercise, but not anything the execs will lose sleep over if it's inconvenient.
  • xnx 1y ago
    > It's less than 1% Anthropic's valuation The settlement is real money though. Valuation is imaginary.
  • ianks 1y ago
    There’s alternatives to wiping out the company that could be fair. For example, a judgement resulting in a shares of the company or revenue shares in the future rather than a one time pay off. Writers were the true “foundational” piece of LLMs, anyway.
    • neilv 1y ago
      If this is an economist idea of fair, where is the market? If someone breaks into my house and steals my valuables, without my consent, then giving me stock in their burglary business isn't much of a deterrent to them and other burglars. Deterrence/prevention is my real goal, not the possibly of a token settlement from whatever bastard rips me off. We need the analogue of laws and police, or the analogue of homeowner has a shotgun.
      • gpm 1y ago
        I don't much like the idea of settling in stock, but I also think you're looking for criminal law here. Civil law, and this is a civil suit, is far more concerned with making damaged parties whole than acting as a deterrent. I understand that intentional copyright infringement is a crime in the US, you just need to convince the DOJ to prosecute Anthropic for it...
• nurettin 1y ago
  I can see a price hike incoming.
  • johnnyanmac 1y ago
    It was coming regardless of the case results.
• robterrell 1y ago
  As a published author who had works in the training data, can I take my settlement payout in the form of Claude Code API credits? TBH I'm just going to plow all that money back into Anthropic... might was well cut out the middleman.
  • gpm 1y ago
    I wonder if Antrhopic's lawyers have enough of a sense of humor to take you up on that if you sent them an email asking...
• GMoromisato 1y ago
  If you are an author here are a couple of relevant links: You can search LibGen by author to see if your work is included. I believe this would make you a member of the class: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/03/search-libgen-data-set/682094/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/03/searc... If you are a member of the class (or think you are) you can submit your contact information to the plaintiff's attorneys here: https://www.anthropiccopyrightsettlement.com/ https://www.anthropiccopyrightsettlement.com/
  • burningion 1y ago
    Thank you for posting this! I suspected my work was in the dataset and it looks like it is! I reached out via the form.
    • GMoromisato 1y ago
      Good luck! Hope you get a payout!
  • doctorpangloss 1y ago
    It’s pretty incredible that the vast majority of authors will make more money for their books from this settlement that they ever have from selling their books.
    • miohtama 1y ago
      God bless capitalistic America.
    • OhMeadhbh 1y ago
      Here's the data from 2018. https://authorsguild.org/news/six-takeaways-from-the-authors-guild-2018-authors-income-survey/ https://authorsguild.org/news/six-takeaways-from-the-authors... Median income was $3100 which is greater than the $3000 average award from the Anthropic settlement. https://www.npr.org/2025/09/05/nx-s1-5529404/anthropic-settlement-authors-copyright-ai https://www.npr.org/2025/09/05/nx-s1-5529404/anthropic-settl... But yes, one set of data is from 7-8 years ago, the other figure is from a few weeks ago. And median and average don't mean the same thing. And it's unclear how the population from the Author's Guild survey maps to the plaintiff class from the Anthropic settlement. But it seems we're in the same ballpark.
• jarjoura 1y ago
  I'm excited for the moment where these models are able to treat using copyrighted work in a fair-use way that pays out to authors the way Spotify does when you listen to a song. Why? Because authors recieving royalties for their works when they get used in some prompt would likely encourage them to become far more accepting towards LLMs. Also passing on the cost to consumers of generated content since companies now would need to pay royalties on the back-end should also likely increase the cost of generating slop and hopefully push back against that trend. This shouldn't just be books, but all written content, like scholarly journals and essays, news articles and blogs, etc. I realize this is just wishful thinking, but there's got to be some nugget of aspirational desire to pay it forward.
• mdp2021 1y ago
  (Sorry, meta question: how do we insert in submissions that "'Also' <link> <link>..." below the title and above the comment input? The text field in the "submit" page creates a user's post when the "url" field is also filled. I am missing something.)
• qqbooks 1y ago
  So if a startup wants to buy book PDFs legally to use for AI purposes, any suggestions on how to do that?
  • JackSlateur 1y ago
    Reach the publishers or resellers (like amazon for instance) Give them this order : "I want to buy all your books as epub" Pay and fetch the stuff That's all
    • comex 1y ago
      For e-books, there will usually be a license agreement that prohibits any kind of nonstandard use. That's why Anthropic had to scan physical books.
• unit149 1y ago
  [dead]
• KTaffer 1y ago
  This was a very tactical decision by Anthropic. They have just received Series F funding, and they can now afford to settle this lawsuit. OpenAI and Google will follow soon now that the precedent has been set, and will likely pay more. It will be a net win for Anthropic.
• lxe 1y ago
  A terrible precedent that guarantees China a win in the AI race
  • oblio 1y ago
    Nobody is winning the AI race. Because everyone is expecting AGI now and it's not happening with our current tech.
• ggm 1y ago
  ... in one economy and for specific authors and publishers. But the offence is global in impact on authors worldwide, and the consequences for other IPR laws remains to be seen.
• amelius 1y ago
  It's better to ask for forgiveness than for permission. Taken right from the VC's handbook.
• rise_before_sun 1y ago
  Does anyone know which models were trained on the pirated books? I would like to avoid using those models.
• 1-6 1y ago
  $3000 per work isn't a bad price. It seems insulting to the copy write holder.
• Taek 1y ago
  I can't help but feel like this is a huge win for Chinese AI. Western companies are going to be limited in the amount of data they can collect and train on, and Chinese (or any foreign AI) is going to have access to much more and much better data.
  • okanat 1y ago
    The West can end the endless pain and legal hurdles to innovation by limiting the copyright. They can do it if there is will to open up the gates of information to everyone. The duration of 70 years after death of the author or 90 years for companies is excessively long. It should be ~25 years. For software it should be 10 years. And if AI companies want recent stuff, they need to pay the owners. However, the West wants to infinitely enrich the lucky old people and companies who benefited from the lax regulations at the start of 20th century. Their people chose to not let the current generations to acquire equivalent wealth, at least not without the old hags get their cut too.
    • redthrow 1y ago
      The vast majority of books don't generate any profits past the first few years, so I prefer Lawrence Lessig's proposal of copyright renewal at five-year intervals with a fee. Under this scheme, most books would enter the public domain after five years https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2003/Lessigcopyright.html https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2003/Lessigcopyrigh... Lessig: Not for this length of time, no. Copyright shouldn’t be anywhere close to what it is right now. In my book I proposed a system where you’d have to renew after every five years and you get a maximum term of 75 years. I thought that was pretty radical at the time. The Economist, after the Eldred decision, came out with a proposal—let’s go back to 14 years, renewable to 28 years. Nobody needs more than 14 years to earn the return back from whatever they produced.
      • mark_l_watson 1y ago
        Lessig’s proposal is excellent. A long time ago I wrote 10 books for publishers like McGraw-Hill, J Wiley, Springer-Verlag, etc. For many reasons I switched to writing using a Creative Commons license using Lulu, LeanPub, and my own web site for distribution. This has been a win for me economically, it feels good to add to the commons, and it is fun.
• Aeolun 1y ago
  Why are they paying $3000 per book. Does anyone think these authors srll their books for that amount?
  • gpm 1y ago
    Copies of these books are for sale for much less than that - very very few books demand a price that high. They're paying much more than the actual damages because US copyright law comes with statutory damages for infringement of registered works on top of actual damages, between $200 and $150,000 per work. And the two sides negotiated this as a fair settlement to reduce the risk of an unfavourable outcome.
  • TurboTveit 1y ago
    They are not paying for reading the book, they are paying for redistributing the book in perpetuity presumably.
    • gpm 1y ago
      Nope, the settlement specifically excludes actions after Aug 25th 2025 (not perpetuity), and it specifically excludes the output of LLMs (not one form of redistribution). Meanwhile it's not alleged that they redistributed the books in any form except as the output of LLMs (not any other form of redistribution). This looks to be almost entirely a settlement for pirating the books. It does also cover the act of training the LLMs on the books, but since the district court already found that to be fair use it's unlikely to have been a major factor in the amount.
  • recursivecaveat 1y ago
    If you acquire something illegally of course the judgement against you has to be much higher than the legal price. Why would anyone purchase anything if the worst thing that could happen to you for stealing it was just paying the retail price?
• flyingzucchini 1y ago
  “Agrees” is a funny old word
• dataflow 1y ago
  How do legal penalties and settlements work internationally? Are entities in other countries somehow barred from filing similar suits with more penalties?
• jbeard4 1y ago
  "$3,000 per work" seems like an incredibly good deal to license a book.
  • mcintyre1994 1y ago
    If the case is about piracy rather than use (which is I think the case?), wouldn’t the comparison be to buying all the books? $3000 each would be a pretty bad deal for that.
• egypturnash 1y ago
  Wooo, I sure could use $3k right now and I've got something in the pirate libraries they scraped. Nice.
• DiabloD3 1y ago
  (Everyone say it with me) Thats a weird way for Anthropic to announce they're going out of business.
• wdb 1y ago
  I do not believe authors will see any of this money. I will change my mind when I see an email or check.
• groovetandon 1y ago
  So if you buy the content legally and fine tune using it that's fair use?
  • 1gn15 1y ago
    Yes. Or download it legally (e.g. web content not behind a paywall).
• mNovak 1y ago
  Everything talks about settlement to the 'authors'; is that meant to be shorthand for copyright holders? Because there are a lot of academic works in that library where the publisher holds exclusive copyright and the author holds nothing. By extension, if the big publishers are getting $3000 per article, that could be a fairly significant windfall.
  • 93po 1y ago
    very unsurprisingly, new york times is going to frame this as a win for "the little guy" when in reality it's just multi-billion dollar publishers, with a long rich history of their own exploitive practices, hanging on for dear life against generative AI
  • Scoundreller 1y ago
    Dunno if this matters but I thought the copyright always remains with the creator/author but they end up assigning the rights contractually. At least generally for books. Movies will be copyrighted by the studio. Kinda how like patents will state the human “inventor” but Apple or whichever corp is assigned the rights.
• footlose_3815 1y ago
  In related thought, when I listen to Suno, when I create "Epic Power Metal", the singer is very-often indistinguishible from the famous Hansi Kursch, of Blind Guardian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hansi_K%C3%BCrsch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hansi_K%C3%BCrsch I'm not sure if he even knows, but that is almost certainly his tracks they trained on.
• bigtones 1y ago
  So the article notes Anthropic states they never publicly released a frontier model that was trained on the downloaded copyright material. So were Claude 2 and 3 only trained on legally purchased and scanned books, or do they now use a different training system that does not rely on books at all ?
  • whimsicalism 1y ago
    it sounds like the former
  • Dilettante_ 1y ago
    I assumed they were literally just lying.
• nromiun 1y ago
  What about OpenAI and Meta? Are they going to face similar lawsuits?
• JohnMakin 1y ago
  You or I would go to jail.
• pbd 1y ago
  From a systems design perspective, $3,000 per book makes this approach completely unscalable compared to web scraping. It's like choosing between a O(n) and O(n²) algorithm - legally compliant data acquisition has fundamentally different scaling characteristics than the 'move fast and break things' approach most labs took initially.
  • whimsicalism 1y ago
    more of a large difference in constant factor, like a galactic algorithm for data trawling
  • BoorishBears 1y ago
    I don't know if anyone has actually read the article or the ruling, but this is about pirating books. Anthropic went back and bought->scanned->destroyed physical copies of them afterward... but they pirated them first, and that's what this settlement is about. The judge also said: > “The training use was a fair use,” he wrote. “The technology at issue was among the most transformative many of us will see in our lifetimes.” So you don't need to pay $3,000 per book you train on unless you pirate them.
    • pbd 1y ago
      i agree. this is very gray imo. e.g., books in India have cheap EEE editions compared to the ones in US/Europe. so they can pre-process the data in India & then compile it in US. does that save them from piracy rules & reduces cost as well.
      • BoorishBears 1y ago
        I mean relative to the cost of pre-training, books are going to be cheap even if you buy them in the US (as demonstrated by the fact Anthropic bought them after) For post-training, other data sources (like human feedback and/or examples) are way more expensive than books
  • thfuran 1y ago
    Isn't a flat price per book quite plainly O(n)? If not, what's n?
• bastard_op 1y ago
  Here's some money, now piss off and let us get back to taking everyone else's. Same racket the media cartels and patent trolls have been forcing for 40-50 years.
• EchoReflection 1y ago
  I get the "Welcome to nginx!" error when I try to visit the archive.ph site, here is an archive.org version: https://web.archive.org/web/20250906042130/http://web.archive.org/screenshot/https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/05/technology/anthropic-settlement-copyright-ai.html?unlocked_article_code=1.jk8.bTTt.Zir9wmtPaTp2 https://web.archive.org/web/20250906042130/http://web.archiv...
• mihaaly 1y ago
  It is a good opportunity to ask: is it true, that Anthropic can get indemnification from user actions that end up in the company being sued? User actions that are related to the use of Claude. Even just for the accusation. The user needs to cover their bills of lawyers and proceedings. Also they take control of the legal process, can do the way they please, settle or what, user footing the bill. Without limit. Be the user an individual or organization, doesn't matter. Sounds harsh, if true. Making its use practical only for hobby projects basically where the results of Claude kept for yourself completely (be it information, product using Claude, or product is made by using Claude). Difficult to believe, I hope I heard it wrong.
• johntopia 1y ago
  was the latest round for paying off fines?
• whatever1 1y ago
  I don’t understand how training an LLM on a book and then selling its contents via subscriptions is fine but using a probabilistic OCR to read a book and then selling its contents is a crime that deserves jail time.
  • miohtama 1y ago
    It's not a crime. It is civil lawsuit.
• rand17 1y ago
  I wonder how many author will see real money out of this (if any). The techbros prayed to the new king of America with the best currency they had: money - so the king may intervene, like he did many times.
• eviks 1y ago
  > the law allowed the company to train A.I. technologies using the books because this transformed them into something new. Unless, of course, the transformation malfunctioned and you got the good old verbatim source, with many of examples compiled in similar lawsuits
  • 0dte 1y ago
    This notably wasn't one of the allegations levied against Anthropic, as Claude was accompanied by software that filtered any infringing outputs. From the relevant opinion finding Anthropic's use of the books to be fair use: > When each LLM was put into a public-facing version of Claude, it was complemented by other software that filtered user inputs to the LLM and filtered outputs from the LLM back to the user. As a result, Authors do not allege that any infringing copy of their works was or would ever be provided to users by the Claude service. (from Bartz v. Anthropic in the Northern District of California)
• zkmon 1y ago
  It's the concentration of power, monopolies driving this trend of ignoring the fines and punishments. The fine system was not designed for these monstrous beasts. Legal code was designed to deter the common man from wrong doing. It did not anticipate the technological super powers doing winner-take-it-all in a highly connected world, and growing beyond the control of law. Basically, it's law of jungle for these companies. Law and punishment is never going to have any effect on them, as long as they can grab enough market share and customer base. Same as any mafia. We are entering a world which is filled with corporate mafia that is above law (due to insignificant damage it can cause). These mafia would grip the world providing the essential services that make up the future world. The State would become much weaker, as policy makers could be bought by lobbying, punishments can be offset by VC funding. It is all part of the playbook.
• swiftcoder 1y ago
  So this is a straight-up victory for Anthropic, right? They pay out (relative) chump change as a penalty for explicitly pirating a bunch of ebooks, and in return they get a ruling that they can train on copyrighted works forever, for the purchase price of the book (not the price that would be needed to secure the rights!)
  • falconroar 1y ago
    I thought the opposite - they set a precedent indicating that reproduction of a copyrighted text by an LLM is infringement. If authors refuse to sell to them (via legal terms indicating LLMs aren't allowed), it's infringement. No? I'd be curious to hear from a legal professional...
    • deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
• neurolesudiste 1y ago
  Quid of the already neural-network already feed by those books ? In case the court choose to protect the writers they should be deleted and retrain without all of this materials removed.
• motbus3 1y ago
  This shouldn't be allowed to be settled outside courts
• rvnx 1y ago
  It is a very good deal for them, did not have to acquire books and had them in a very convenient format (no digitalization), saved tons of time (5+ years), got access to rare books and the LLM is not considered derived work, when it is actually clearly one
• hirako2000 1y ago
  I wrote a book, can I get my 1 dollar cheque?
  • Dilettante_ 1y ago
    You can check, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45144261 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45144261
• WesolyKubeczek 1y ago
  I'm wondering, if they could purchase all the books that had been in the pirate stash, in physical or DRM-free ebook form, could they have been out of trouble? Use the stash because it's already pre-digitized and accessible, give money to publishers. It would take time, sure, to compile the lists and make bulk orders, but wouldn't it be cheaper in the end than the settlement?
• unvritt 1y ago
  I think that one under-discussed effect for settlements like this is the additional tax on experimentation. The largest players can absorb a $1.5B hit or negotiate licensing at scale. Smaller labs and startups, which often drive breakthroughs, may not survive the compliance burden. That could push the industry toward consolidation—fewer independent experiments, more centralized R&D inside big tech. I feel that, this might slow the pace of unexpected innovations and increase dependence on incumbents. This def. raises the question: how do we balance fair compensation for creators with keeping the door open for innovation?
  • zinglersen 1y ago
    "That could push the industry toward consolidation" Based on history this is not a possibility but a certainty. The larger players - who grew because of limited regulations - will start supporting stricter regulation and compliance structures in order to increase the barrier of entry with the excuse of "Oh we learned our lesson, you are right". The hypocrisy is crazy but it makes sense from a capitalistic perspective.
    • jsilence 1y ago
      That is part of the ‚first mover advantage‘. Sometimes operating and experimenting in grey zones before they become regulated. The European and especially German approach of regulating pre-emptive might be more fair, but apparently it also stifles innovation, as we can observe. Almost no significant players from Europe and Germany.
• atleastoptimal 1y ago
  Reminder that just recently, Anthropic raised a $13 billion series F at a $183 billion post-money evaluation. In March, they were worth $61.5 billion In six months they've created $120 billion in value. That's almost 700 million dollars per day. Avoiding being slowed down by even a few days is worth a billion dollar payout when you are on this trajectory. This lawsuit, and any lawsuit AI model companies are likely to get, will be a rounding error at the end of the fiscal year. They know that superintelligent AI is far larger than money, and even so, the money they'll make on the way there is hefty enough for copyright law to not be an issue.
• Luker88 1y ago
  5 days ago GamesNexus did a piece on Meta having the same problems, but resolving it differently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdtBgB7iS8c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdtBgB7iS8c Somehow excuses like "we torrented it, but we configured low seeding" "temptation was too strong because there was money to be made" "we tried getting a licenses, but then ignored it" and more ludicrous excuses actually worked. Internal meta emails seemed to point to people knowing the blatant breach of copyright, and yet Meta won the case. I guess there are tiers of laws even between billionaire companies.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• action404x 1y ago
  This settlement highlights the growing pains of the AI industry as it scales rapidly. While $1.5B is significant, it's a fraction of Anthropic's valuation and funding. It underscores the need for better governance in AI development to avoid future legal pitfalls. Interesting to see how this affects their competition with OpenAI.
• lovelyDays61 1y ago
  Why only Anthropic?
• fab13n 1y ago
  Smart move: now that they're an established player, and that they have a few billions of investors' money to spend, they comfort a jurisprudence that stealing IP to train your models is a billion dollar offense. What a formidable moat against newcomers, definitely worth the price!
• sylware 1y ago
  This is exactly what could imped LLM training dataset in the western world, which will mechanically lead to "richer" LLM training dataset in countries where some PI is not walling that data for training. But then, the countries with the freedom to add everything to the training dataset will have to distribute for free the weights in PI walled countries (because they would be plain 'illegal' and will be "blocked" over there, unless free as in free beer I guess), basically only what deepseek could work. If powerfull LLM hardware becomes somewhat affordable (look at nvidia omega push on LLM specific hardware), "local" companies may run at reasonable speed those 'foreign trained LLM models', but "here".
• mbrochh 1y ago
  After their recent change in tune to retain data for longer and to train on our data, I deleted my account. Try to do that. There is no easy way to delete your account. You need to reach out to their support via email. Incredibly obnoxious dark pattern. I hate OpenAI, but everything with Anthropic also smells fishy. We need more and better players. I hope that XAi will give them all some good competition, but I have my doubts.
  • bakies 1y ago
    X doesn't smell fishy to you??
    • lobsterthief 1y ago
      Yeah, xAi is messing with their models to force political leanings. Doesn’t instill confidence using it for my business.
  • yard2010 1y ago
    Their logo is a butt hole.
  • 101011 1y ago
    I think it's fair to call out a dark pattern for account deletion (which, for better or worse, is common practice) - but the data training and data retention thing can both be disabled...I was much more surprised that they DIDN'T train on data as long as they did, when every other LLM provider was sucking in as much data as they could (OpenAI, Google, Meta, and xAI - although Meta gets a pass for providing the open-weight models in my head). Anthropic has made AI safety a central pillar of their ethos and have shared a lot of information about what they're doing to responsibly train models...personally I found a lot of corporate-speak on this topic from OpenAI, but very little information.
• arendtio 1y ago
  OT: Is anybody else seeing that Datadome is blocking their IP? I haven't had this in a while, but I always hate it when I'm blocked by Cloudflare/Datadome/etc.
• gordian-mind 1y ago
  After the book publishers burned Google Book's Library of Alexandria, they are now making it impossible to train a LLM unless you engage in the medieval process of manually buying paper-copies of work just to scan & destroy them...
  • znpy 1y ago
    for recent books, they could buy digital version of the books and use them for training, though.
    • satyrnein 1y ago
      I was wondering about this, but digital versions are typical DRM-encumbered and actually a license (not a true purchase) whose terms probably don't allow this. The court's decision was that training is fair use, but in practice, it seems many avenues are blocked. It reminds of the theoretically public beaches that are blocked off by privately owned land.
      • riskable 1y ago
        DRM is irrelevant. That's only if you want to efficiently extract the text. If you point a camera at an ebook reader with a little motor to tap the screen, "next" that's still easier than scanning physical books. The reason why companies aren't using ebooks is because all the publishers and ebook companies make you click through a license stating that "this book for personal use" (paraphrased).
  • nromiun 1y ago
    If they wanted a copyright free world maybe they should publish all their models as copyright free as well. But they are not doing it are they?
    • luqtas 1y ago
      don't come up with logics defending the proletarian /s
• TimByte 1y ago
  It doesn't set precedent, but the message to other AI companies is clear: if you're going to bet your model on gray-area data, have a few billion handy for settlements
• ycombinatrix 1y ago
  How did Meta get away without a scratch?
• pluc 1y ago
  Illegal with a fine is legal with a fee.
  • TimByte 1y ago
    Silicon Valley's unofficial motto for the last 15 years
• surfingdino 1y ago
  This will paid to rights holders, not authors. Published authors sign away the rights to financial exploitation of their books under the terms of contracts offered. I expect some authors suing publishers in turn. This has happened before when authors realised that they were not getting paid royalties on sales of ebooks.
• __MatrixMan__ 1y ago
  Any models trained on the ill-gotten data should now be public domain.
• arduanika 1y ago
  Let us not forget that this one is the good, ethical AI company. The one founded by splinter AI safety cultists who thought that OpenAI wasn't deep enough in the safety cult for their liking. And here they are, keeping the humans safe. By robbing them. Because it turns out that nobody in the whole safety cult cares a whit for the human mind, the human experience, human art. Maybe for something they call "human values" in some abstract thought experiment, but never for any human decency. No, the human mind is just ones and zeros, just like a computer, no soul and no spark, to people in the cult. The cult thinks that an LLM reading a book is just the same mechanically as a human reading it. Your brain is just emergence, your honor. Fair use. Blah blah Dennett Hofstadter Yudkowsky. Do you feel safe?
  • pennomi 1y ago
    I don’t think that copyright is related to safety at all. Copyright is something that doesn’t really exist, except as a social agreement, while safety is something that exists whether or not society believes it does.
    • arduanika 1y ago
      We are gods, we are very smart, we make our own rules, says the cult. We define what safety is, not you. Safety is protecting you from imagined monsters for your own good, not protecting you from getting robbed by us. And anyways, property rights are just made up, man, a social construct. But investors, please give us billions of dollars worth of that imaginary social agreement. We need it so that we can build the inevitable future. We're gonna do it more ethically than those guys over there. What a swindle.
      • arduanika 1y ago
        "Laws against infiltrating the IRS don't really exist, except as a social agreement, while Lord Xenu is someone who exists whether or not society believes he does." That's what you sound like, to people not in the safety cult.
• codedokode 1y ago
  Is this legal: scan billions of pirated books, train a LLM on them and generate billion public domain books with it so that nobody ever needs copyrighted books anymore? Also if there is a software library with annoying Stallman-style license, can one use LLM to generate a compatible library but in a public domain or with commercial license? So that nobody needs to respect software licenses anymore? Can we also generate a free Photoshop, Linux kernel and Windows this way?
• scotty79 1y ago
  That's the worst AI news I read ever. Even might AI with billions must kneel to copyright industry. We are forever doomed. Human culture will never be free from the grasp of rent seeking.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• Anon84 1y ago
  So… when can I expect my cheque? Seriously, how will this money propagate to the authors (if at all) or will it just stay with the publishers?
• rallies 1y ago
  So that's 10% of their latest series?
• game_the0ry 1y ago
  I feel like there could a business opportunity for authors here - selling their books to LLM companies. For the LLM companies, it could be cheaper than a lawsuit and the authors get paid.
• thayne 1y ago
  I hope this leads to the big AI companies pushing for copyright reform that makes access to DRM-free digital content better for everyone.
• iamsaitam 1y ago
  Fair use just in legal terms, not ethical.