4 ms·

<sarcasm> I thought that Anthropic and OpenAI created precedents that legitimize libgen and Anna archive. They pillaged all the books and scientific papers from

by lr1970 9mo ago

<sarcasm> I thought that Anthropic and OpenAI created precedents that legitimize libgen and Anna archive. They pillaged all the books and scientific papers from those archives and got away with it. Why not the rest of us? </sarcasm>

carlosjobim 9mo ago
> got away with it Anthropic paid a settlement of $1 500 000 000 to authors.
- wswope 9mo ago
  Doesn't really mean much until individuals can also sacrifice a small percentage of their ARR to completely ignore IP law. I'd take that deal, but until it becomes and option, we have a clearly broken system. Rules for thee; not for me, etc.
  - nostrademons 9mo ago
    They can: VPNs.
    - wswope 9mo ago
      Fair point, but I think the Pinkertons would be at my door within the hour if I started re-appropriating the art style of Studio Ghibli or Disney for commercial profit.
  - dmix 9mo ago
    People always say this like the tech industry wasn't culturally anti-copyright and pro-creative commons before. Those same people probably work at Meta and Anthropic, just like Google's book project which got them in trouble.
    - wswope 9mo ago
      > People always say this like the tech industry wasn't culturally anti-copyright and pro-creative commons before. I completely agree with that. The problem is that the current system is such that only billion dollar players can flout the rules, while everyone else is left in the dust. Worst of both worlds IMO.
      - dmix 9mo ago
        Others already mentioned they lost their lawsuit. Should the fines have killed Anthropic? Would have been more fair and a less bad world? Why not focus energy on being anti-aggressive copyright in general. These system won't ever be fair. It's just rent seeking enabled by the government and some people can afford the rent.
        carlosjobim 9mo ago
        To pick a nit: Technically Anthropic didn't loose any lawsuit or pay any fine. They came to an agreement with the authors to pay them a $1,5 billion settlement. Which was a lot of money per book.
        votepaunchy 9mo ago
        And a lot more expensive per book than buying, digitizing, and destroying the physical copy. Which was ruled legal.
        wswope 9mo ago
        You’re talking past me for no real reason, mate. That’s precisely the point I’m making. Young Carlos thinks it matters that Anthropic got sued when they can keep flouting the rules anyway, and I disagree: it’s not a fair system until we ditch the rent-seeking entirely.
        carlosjobim 9mo ago
        They paid one of the largest settlements in world history. Should I guess that hackers are only satisfied with the public execution of the company leadership?
  - carlosjobim 9mo ago
    Why the negativity? You can also as an individual do the same as Anthropic and get sued for billions. You have that option, don't let anybody hold you back!
dehrmann 9mo ago
Be careful not to confuse using the material and distributing it. There are open legal cases sorting out what fair use means for generative AI. Distribution (seeding in the case of torrents) of this material isn't legal. It got Meta in trouble, and it's getting Anna's archive in trouble.

by lr1970 9mo ago

carlosjobim 9mo ago

> got away with it Anthropic paid a settlement of $1 500 000 000 to authors.

wswope 9mo ago
Doesn't really mean much until individuals can also sacrifice a small percentage of their ARR to completely ignore IP law. I'd take that deal, but until it becomes and option, we have a clearly broken system. Rules for thee; not for me, etc.
- nostrademons 9mo ago
  They can: VPNs.
  - wswope 9mo ago
    Fair point, but I think the Pinkertons would be at my door within the hour if I started re-appropriating the art style of Studio Ghibli or Disney for commercial profit.
- dmix 9mo ago
  People always say this like the tech industry wasn't culturally anti-copyright and pro-creative commons before. Those same people probably work at Meta and Anthropic, just like Google's book project which got them in trouble.
  - wswope 9mo ago
    > People always say this like the tech industry wasn't culturally anti-copyright and pro-creative commons before. I completely agree with that. The problem is that the current system is such that only billion dollar players can flout the rules, while everyone else is left in the dust. Worst of both worlds IMO.
    - dmix 9mo ago
      Others already mentioned they lost their lawsuit. Should the fines have killed Anthropic? Would have been more fair and a less bad world? Why not focus energy on being anti-aggressive copyright in general. These system won't ever be fair. It's just rent seeking enabled by the government and some people can afford the rent.
      - carlosjobim 9mo ago
        To pick a nit: Technically Anthropic didn't loose any lawsuit or pay any fine. They came to an agreement with the authors to pay them a $1,5 billion settlement. Which was a lot of money per book.
        votepaunchy 9mo ago
        And a lot more expensive per book than buying, digitizing, and destroying the physical copy. Which was ruled legal.
      - wswope 9mo ago
        You’re talking past me for no real reason, mate. That’s precisely the point I’m making. Young Carlos thinks it matters that Anthropic got sued when they can keep flouting the rules anyway, and I disagree: it’s not a fair system until we ditch the rent-seeking entirely.
        carlosjobim 9mo ago
        They paid one of the largest settlements in world history. Should I guess that hackers are only satisfied with the public execution of the company leadership?
- carlosjobim 9mo ago
  Why the negativity? You can also as an individual do the same as Anthropic and get sued for billions. You have that option, don't let anybody hold you back!

dehrmann 9mo ago

Be careful not to confuse using the material and distributing it. There are open legal cases sorting out what fair use means for generative AI. Distribution (seeding in the case of torrents) of this material isn't legal. It got Meta in trouble, and it's getting Anna's archive in trouble.