7 ms·

I sincerely don't understand what the point of these laws are, when the cost of flagrant violations is no more than a slap on the wrist -- these really meager s

I sincerely don't understand what the point of these laws are, when the cost of flagrant violations is no more than a slap on the wrist -- these really meager sums that serve as nothing more than something to point at and say "Look, we did something!" Cover-your-ass strategy, and nothing more. Who, besides the ones at fault, are ever happy with these mean-nothing fines? The justice system really needs an overhaul with how it tackles "justice" between the wealthy, the connected, the corporations, and the rest. Though I am unsure what that would look like. Minimum net wealth per category of infraction across the board? Edit: grammar

datakan 3mo ago
Punishable by fine just means it's legal for a cost. If the fine is less than the profit then they'll pay the fine every time.
- protocolture 3mo ago
  No the "fine" is 3000 bucks per book. Thats more than it costs to just shred the spine and scan the book in. Which is probably 15 - 20 bucks a piece. They will be shredding the book not paying the fine.
jaitsu 3mo ago
Because using pirated material is a civil issue, not a criminal offence?
renlo 3mo ago
the irony is that all of this money will go to rent-seeking publishers who won't pass it on to the artists; basically a dispute between the wealthy you're upset with
- Aurornis 3mo ago
  The lawsuit was a mixed blend of individual authors and publishers. It was started by a group of authors, not publishers.
  - renlo 3mo ago
    For the downvotes, my response is to read: https://authorsguild.org/advocacy/artificial-intelligence/what-authors-need-to-know-about-the-anthropic-settlement/ https://authorsguild.org/advocacy/artificial-intelligence/wh... > If there is a current publisher(s) (which still possesses an exclusive license), the author(s) will split the $3000 with the publisher. Any co-authors will share the author portion and, if there are multiple publishers (e.g., different publishers have exclusive rights to different formats), they will share the publisher portion. Assume that the co-authors and co-publishers will share the portion equally unless their contracts provide otherwise. The standard default split between publishers and authors of noneducational texts is 50/50, as described below. Authors who are the sole rightsholder in a work—such as self-published authors and authors whose rights have reverted or where the contracts have otherwise terminated—will receive the full award amount. It is split between the publisher and the author, also publishers will have a large catalog of books they will submit, an author typically will only have a few -- the payout will be going to the lawyers and mostly to publishers.
    - gruez 3mo ago
      >It is split between the publisher and the author, also publishers will have a large catalog of books they will submit, an author typically will only have a few -- the payout will be going to the lawyers and mostly to publishers. This is innumerate. If it's split 50% between authors and publishers, then it won't be "mostly to publishers". Mathematically it will be equal between "authors" and "publishers", and because lawyers are taking their cut, neither would be able to get "most" of it. Yes, the average publisher will get a bigger paycheck, but that's because there's less of them, not because "most going to publishers".
      - renlo 3mo ago
        > That means that rightsholders can expect at least $3,000 per title (less costs and fees), which will be shared among the rightsholders for that title (if there is more than one rightsholder) > if there is more than one rightsholder Again, a publisher will have a whole catalog of books / titles, a non-negligible portion of that the publisher will own the copyright to (no one to split it with). There's all kinds of books outside of novels, there's media tie-ins, IP franchise books (ie Star Wars), childrens books, textbooks / reference materials, etc etc etc. Yes, with novels the author tends to own the copyright, but you're forgetting all of the other kinds of books out there.
- robterrell 3mo ago
  Not true. Individual authors could sign up for the settlement. One of my books was in there under my name.
  - scotty79 3mo ago
    What's gonna be your payout and are you satisfied with it?
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- jdlshore 3mo ago
  Default payout is 50/50 author/publisher. If the author and publisher have a contract that states otherwise, then their contract overrides the default. Source: I’m an author and signed up to be part of the class action, and this was the class action documents said.
Ritewut 3mo ago
The laws are for you and me not companies like Anthropic and Meta.
PunchyHamster 3mo ago
To keep users paying for content while companies do whatever they want - and if that's not the reason that's certainly an effect. > The justice system really needs an overhaul with how it tackles "justice" between the wealthy, the connected, the corporations, and the rest. Though I am unsure what that would look like. Minimum net wealth per category of infraction across the board? % of annual turnover seems like decent strategy. Caps the amount company can sue mere mortal for copyright infringement while at billion dollar company scale can wipe quite a bit But main problem is enforcement and lobbying, not the size of the fine
- blackqueeriroh 3mo ago
  So you now believe fair use should not exist?
Aurornis 3mo ago
This is a settlement that the authors and Anthropic agreed upon. They agreed on the amount last year. The judge approved it now. The lawsuit was for the way the books were acquired. They already ruled that it's not infringement to use the books. The award was $3,000 per book, which is about 100X higher than it would have cost to buy the books. It's never going to appease the people who demand companies be sued into collapse, but given that both parties came to an agreement and the damages are 100X higher than what a book costs, it looks reasonable to me.
- nadermx 3mo ago
  This case did at least shed light on the fair use argument.
- scotty79 3mo ago
  > The award was $3,000 per book, which is about 100X higher than it would have cost to buy the books. How many of the authors would license their book for endless creation of derivative works for that amount?
  - Aurornis 3mo ago
    The judge already ruled that it was fair for Anthropic to use books for training if they acquired them legally.
  - paulddraper 3mo ago
    Probably few, but irrelevant as the ruling was it was not a derivative work.
  - protocolture 3mo ago
    I dont see the relevance. If Anthropic had bought the book at the store, shredded the spine, scanned the pages and trained on that data instead, there wouldnt have been an issue. Authors cant simply license away fair use. If it could be dismissed so easily the right wouldn't exist.
    - 3mo ago
zajio1am 3mo ago
Civil justice is primarily about restoring damages, not about punishing wrongdoing (although common law in US it is more punitive than civil law in european countries). Therefore compensations are based on damages, not on profit from wrongdoings.
bjourne 3mo ago
> I sincerely don't understand what the point of these laws are, when the cost of flagrant violations is no more than a slap on the wrist -- these really meager sums that serve as nothing more than something to point at and say "Look, we did something!" To create a moat around wealth generation. After all, that is the main purpose of all legal systems---to keep the wealthy wealthy and the poor poor. In this case, the settlement is chump change for Anthropic, but ensures that no upstart will be able to compete with them since they will get reamed on copyright charges. It's no different from Google Image search. They can make a product out of republishing others' images. You cannot do it.

datakan 3mo ago

Punishable by fine just means it's legal for a cost. If the fine is less than the profit then they'll pay the fine every time.

protocolture 3mo ago
No the "fine" is 3000 bucks per book. Thats more than it costs to just shred the spine and scan the book in. Which is probably 15 - 20 bucks a piece. They will be shredding the book not paying the fine.

jaitsu 3mo ago

Because using pirated material is a civil issue, not a criminal offence?

renlo 3mo ago

the irony is that all of this money will go to rent-seeking publishers who won't pass it on to the artists; basically a dispute between the wealthy you're upset with

Aurornis 3mo ago
The lawsuit was a mixed blend of individual authors and publishers. It was started by a group of authors, not publishers.
- renlo 3mo ago
  For the downvotes, my response is to read: https://authorsguild.org/advocacy/artificial-intelligence/what-authors-need-to-know-about-the-anthropic-settlement/ https://authorsguild.org/advocacy/artificial-intelligence/wh... > If there is a current publisher(s) (which still possesses an exclusive license), the author(s) will split the $3000 with the publisher. Any co-authors will share the author portion and, if there are multiple publishers (e.g., different publishers have exclusive rights to different formats), they will share the publisher portion. Assume that the co-authors and co-publishers will share the portion equally unless their contracts provide otherwise. The standard default split between publishers and authors of noneducational texts is 50/50, as described below. Authors who are the sole rightsholder in a work—such as self-published authors and authors whose rights have reverted or where the contracts have otherwise terminated—will receive the full award amount. It is split between the publisher and the author, also publishers will have a large catalog of books they will submit, an author typically will only have a few -- the payout will be going to the lawyers and mostly to publishers.
  - gruez 3mo ago
    >It is split between the publisher and the author, also publishers will have a large catalog of books they will submit, an author typically will only have a few -- the payout will be going to the lawyers and mostly to publishers. This is innumerate. If it's split 50% between authors and publishers, then it won't be "mostly to publishers". Mathematically it will be equal between "authors" and "publishers", and because lawyers are taking their cut, neither would be able to get "most" of it. Yes, the average publisher will get a bigger paycheck, but that's because there's less of them, not because "most going to publishers".
    - renlo 3mo ago
      > That means that rightsholders can expect at least $3,000 per title (less costs and fees), which will be shared among the rightsholders for that title (if there is more than one rightsholder) > if there is more than one rightsholder Again, a publisher will have a whole catalog of books / titles, a non-negligible portion of that the publisher will own the copyright to (no one to split it with). There's all kinds of books outside of novels, there's media tie-ins, IP franchise books (ie Star Wars), childrens books, textbooks / reference materials, etc etc etc. Yes, with novels the author tends to own the copyright, but you're forgetting all of the other kinds of books out there.
robterrell 3mo ago
Not true. Individual authors could sign up for the settlement. One of my books was in there under my name.
- scotty79 3mo ago
  What's gonna be your payout and are you satisfied with it?
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
jdlshore 3mo ago
Default payout is 50/50 author/publisher. If the author and publisher have a contract that states otherwise, then their contract overrides the default. Source: I’m an author and signed up to be part of the class action, and this was the class action documents said.

Ritewut 3mo ago

The laws are for you and me not companies like Anthropic and Meta.

PunchyHamster 3mo ago

To keep users paying for content while companies do whatever they want - and if that's not the reason that's certainly an effect. > The justice system really needs an overhaul with how it tackles "justice" between the wealthy, the connected, the corporations, and the rest. Though I am unsure what that would look like. Minimum net wealth per category of infraction across the board? % of annual turnover seems like decent strategy. Caps the amount company can sue mere mortal for copyright infringement while at billion dollar company scale can wipe quite a bit But main problem is enforcement and lobbying, not the size of the fine

blackqueeriroh 3mo ago
So you now believe fair use should not exist?

Aurornis 3mo ago

This is a settlement that the authors and Anthropic agreed upon. They agreed on the amount last year. The judge approved it now. The lawsuit was for the way the books were acquired. They already ruled that it's not infringement to use the books. The award was $3,000 per book, which is about 100X higher than it would have cost to buy the books. It's never going to appease the people who demand companies be sued into collapse, but given that both parties came to an agreement and the damages are 100X higher than what a book costs, it looks reasonable to me.

nadermx 3mo ago
This case did at least shed light on the fair use argument.
scotty79 3mo ago
> The award was $3,000 per book, which is about 100X higher than it would have cost to buy the books. How many of the authors would license their book for endless creation of derivative works for that amount?
- Aurornis 3mo ago
  The judge already ruled that it was fair for Anthropic to use books for training if they acquired them legally.
- paulddraper 3mo ago
  Probably few, but irrelevant as the ruling was it was not a derivative work.
- protocolture 3mo ago
  I dont see the relevance. If Anthropic had bought the book at the store, shredded the spine, scanned the pages and trained on that data instead, there wouldnt have been an issue. Authors cant simply license away fair use. If it could be dismissed so easily the right wouldn't exist.
  - 3mo ago

zajio1am 3mo ago

Civil justice is primarily about restoring damages, not about punishing wrongdoing (although common law in US it is more punitive than civil law in european countries). Therefore compensations are based on damages, not on profit from wrongdoings.

bjourne 3mo ago

> I sincerely don't understand what the point of these laws are, when the cost of flagrant violations is no more than a slap on the wrist -- these really meager sums that serve as nothing more than something to point at and say "Look, we did something!" To create a moat around wealth generation. After all, that is the main purpose of all legal systems---to keep the wealthy wealthy and the poor poor. In this case, the settlement is chump change for Anthropic, but ensures that no upstart will be able to compete with them since they will get reamed on copyright charges. It's no different from Google Image search. They can make a product out of republishing others' images. You cannot do it.