5 ms·

Because no one wants that. They’re offering incredible value for what they took.

danny_codes 3mo ago
I mean.. it also sends the message that you can ignore the law if you're rich. $1.5B is like a single failed training run for Anthropic. They burn that in a long weekend because somebody forgot to abort a hyper parameter search. Obviously exaggerating.. but not by much.
- singingtoday 3mo ago
  I mean, you can mostly. That's apparent all over. Money buys freedom.
- dyauspitr 3mo ago
  It’s like you can ignore the law if you have a great idea that works out. Lots of people have ended up doing it. Uber did it for a long time. Musk, did it with the sale of Tesla cars. There are a bunch of examples from outside of the US as well.
  - sakjur 3mo ago
    That sounds like an oligarchy. Especially if "great" is measured in dollars rather than public good.
    - dyauspitr 3mo ago
      In most cases it’s for the public good (even if a lot of the public has to be taken kicking and screaming), atleast the examples I listed above are. Uber and Tesla both revolutionized entire industries. So did Anthropic.
      - danny_codes 3mo ago
        Is it? Uber has been a net loss for society. It increased overall VMT, especially in urban areas, and drove riders away from transit. On the whole this is both bad for cities and bad for city dwellers. We have more traffic and less transit, precisely the opposite of what we should be aiming for. If corporations can selectively ignore whatever laws they don't like, we won't have a functioning society anymore. Our society is predicated on equality under the law. If general trust in that principle breaks down I don't see how democracy survives.
        dyauspitr 3mo ago
        Transit is a win only is large cities. Everywhere else, where most people in the US live (only 6% of the US population lives in dense, walkable urban environments), public transit is not a viable option. Uber is a huge win. Before Uber everyone that lived in a suburb or in a rural and semi rural area (~94% of the population)had to call an expensive limo that would cost hundreds of dollars to get anywhere if you didn’t have a car. That’s a thing of the past now.
monooso 3mo ago
1. Some people want that, with good reason. 2. There's incredible value in what they stole. 3. IANAL, but I don't believe "but now everyone can write like a terrible version of the writer we fleeced" is a valid legal defense.
- Zambyte 3mo ago
  > stole Copying is not theft.
  - monooso 3mo ago
    AFAICT it is if you're not a trillion dollar company. https://youtu.be/ALZZx1xmAzg?si=ugquA7uKT3ABGdws https://youtu.be/ALZZx1xmAzg?si=ugquA7uKT3ABGdws
markdown 3mo ago
Aaron Swartz also intended to offer incredible value for what he took, AND for no personal profit.
- dyauspitr 3mo ago
  That’s the difference between breaking the law as an individual and doing it as a corporation.
- usef- 3mo ago
  ... and I don't think people wanted him chased for it either?
  - leni536 3mo ago
    Abolish copyright then. The selective enforcement needs to stop.
    - theplumber 3mo ago
      This is my point too. This fucking double standard/class discrimination pisses me off.
      - dyauspitr 3mo ago
        Not everything can be black and white. Human nature requires fuzz because we don’t all agree on everything.
bigbuppo 3mo ago
Yeah, man, sure they cleaned out the vault, but the valuable insights gained for how to keep it from happening again are priceless!
- dyauspitr 3mo ago
  I want it to happen again. Copyright is important but I want someone that does tremendous good to be able to fall into a grey area where they’re given a free pass. But only on a case by case basis. Keep the lines fuzzy. That way we get to defend copyright but someone extraordinary also has a ray of hope of getting away with subverting it.
  - monooso 3mo ago
    > Keep the lines fuzzy. That way we get to defend copyright but someone extraordinary also has a ray of hope of getting away with subverting it. That's a very charitable way of saying "someone with deep enough pockets can ignore the law and get away with it."
    - dyauspitr 3mo ago
      Or something that works for the public good in the long term even if the public won’t accept it now because the masses are short sighted and only care about their own little worlds.

I mean.. it also sends the message that you can ignore the law if you're rich. $1.5B is like a single failed training run for Anthropic. They burn that in a long weekend because somebody forgot to abort a hyper parameter search. Obviously exaggerating.. but not by much.

singingtoday 3mo ago
I mean, you can mostly. That's apparent all over. Money buys freedom.
dyauspitr 3mo ago
It’s like you can ignore the law if you have a great idea that works out. Lots of people have ended up doing it. Uber did it for a long time. Musk, did it with the sale of Tesla cars. There are a bunch of examples from outside of the US as well.
- sakjur 3mo ago
  That sounds like an oligarchy. Especially if "great" is measured in dollars rather than public good.
  - dyauspitr 3mo ago
    In most cases it’s for the public good (even if a lot of the public has to be taken kicking and screaming), atleast the examples I listed above are. Uber and Tesla both revolutionized entire industries. So did Anthropic.
    - danny_codes 3mo ago
      Is it? Uber has been a net loss for society. It increased overall VMT, especially in urban areas, and drove riders away from transit. On the whole this is both bad for cities and bad for city dwellers. We have more traffic and less transit, precisely the opposite of what we should be aiming for. If corporations can selectively ignore whatever laws they don't like, we won't have a functioning society anymore. Our society is predicated on equality under the law. If general trust in that principle breaks down I don't see how democracy survives.
      - dyauspitr 3mo ago
        Transit is a win only is large cities. Everywhere else, where most people in the US live (only 6% of the US population lives in dense, walkable urban environments), public transit is not a viable option. Uber is a huge win. Before Uber everyone that lived in a suburb or in a rural and semi rural area (~94% of the population)had to call an expensive limo that would cost hundreds of dollars to get anywhere if you didn’t have a car. That’s a thing of the past now.

monooso 3mo ago

1. Some people want that, with good reason. 2. There's incredible value in what they stole. 3. IANAL, but I don't believe "but now everyone can write like a terrible version of the writer we fleeced" is a valid legal defense.

Zambyte 3mo ago
> stole Copying is not theft.
- monooso 3mo ago
  AFAICT it is if you're not a trillion dollar company. https://youtu.be/ALZZx1xmAzg?si=ugquA7uKT3ABGdws https://youtu.be/ALZZx1xmAzg?si=ugquA7uKT3ABGdws

markdown 3mo ago

Aaron Swartz also intended to offer incredible value for what he took, AND for no personal profit.

dyauspitr 3mo ago
That’s the difference between breaking the law as an individual and doing it as a corporation.
usef- 3mo ago
... and I don't think people wanted him chased for it either?
- leni536 3mo ago
  Abolish copyright then. The selective enforcement needs to stop.
  - theplumber 3mo ago
    This is my point too. This fucking double standard/class discrimination pisses me off.
    - dyauspitr 3mo ago
      Not everything can be black and white. Human nature requires fuzz because we don’t all agree on everything.

bigbuppo 3mo ago

Yeah, man, sure they cleaned out the vault, but the valuable insights gained for how to keep it from happening again are priceless!

dyauspitr 3mo ago
I want it to happen again. Copyright is important but I want someone that does tremendous good to be able to fall into a grey area where they’re given a free pass. But only on a case by case basis. Keep the lines fuzzy. That way we get to defend copyright but someone extraordinary also has a ray of hope of getting away with subverting it.
- monooso 3mo ago
  > Keep the lines fuzzy. That way we get to defend copyright but someone extraordinary also has a ray of hope of getting away with subverting it. That's a very charitable way of saying "someone with deep enough pockets can ignore the law and get away with it."
  - dyauspitr 3mo ago
    Or something that works for the public good in the long term even if the public won’t accept it now because the masses are short sighted and only care about their own little worlds.