3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoOthers 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 agoTo 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 agoAnd a lot more expensive per book than buying, digitizing, and destroying the physical copy. Which was ruled legal.
- wswope 9mo agoYou’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 agoThey 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?