3 ms·
> the US can “sanction” companies that engage in intellectual property theft. Peak hypocrisy, US AI companies can train on unlimited intellectual property with
by chrisnight 2mo ago
> the US can “sanction” companies that engage in intellectual property theft.
Peak hypocrisy, US AI companies can train on unlimited intellectual property with 0 rights to it, while Chinese AI companies have to explicitly get the rights to data that isn’t even copyrightable/copyrighted (since AI alone can’t copyright it).
- hnfong 2mo agoIt's not IP theft if US courts say it isn't. And if the accused company is outside of the US, well, US courts have no jurisdiction so apparently the US government can just claim they are guilty and impose the sanctions...
- Frieren 2mo agoThe USA has stolen intellectual property from ALL AROUND THE WORLD. AI is not trained just in copyrighted USA content. Other countries have a say about it.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- dragontamer 2mo agoBecause they used a pirating website to get the material and stored them on their servers for personal use. The AI training part of the court case was deemed fair use.
- throw1234567891 2mo agoAnd it’s not a war if Putin says so. And it’s not a possible future invasion of Taiwan if Xi says so. Who cares what US courts say.
- MangoCoffee 2mo agoUS's court can enforce IPs. Didn't Antrhpic just agree to pay book authors billion for the recent lawsuit settlement?
- zuzululu 2mo agoThat will never happen. Copyright is not a thing in China.
- anticensor 2mo agoCopyright is a thing in China, but Chinese enforcement is very different.
- chmod775 2mo agoThe judge explicitly ruled that training on the books was fine. They just should have bought them, rather than pirating them. Also LLM output is not IP (in itself) in the first place, nor would Anthropic want to claim it is and that they have rights to it - that would drive paying customers away. The issue comes down to at most ToS violations.
- nickthegreek 2mo ago> They just should have bought them, rather than pirating them. Bought, scanned and destroyed them I believe. The judge okay'd Destructive Scanning.
- bloppe 2mo agoDestruction is not necessary. Google Books is a solid precedent. You can keep the content, you just can't make significant parts publicly available
- nickthegreek 2mo ago> The court also held that the third factor favored fair use as to the purchased library copies converted from print to digital because the purpose of the copying was to keep the books in its library but with more favorable storage and searchability properties. This purpose required copying, there was no surplus copying and the source copy was destroyed. With respect to the pirated copies, however, the court held that because “Anthropic lacked any entitlement to hold those copies” and retained them “even after deciding it would not make further copies from them for training,” this third factor weighed against Anthropic for that particular use. https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2025/07/bartz-v-anthropic-pbc?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2025/07/bartz-... You need to destroy the _physical copy_ that you scanned.
- InsideOutSanta 2mo agoMeanwhile, X.ai committing all of the crimes.
- 1234letshaveatw 2mo agodid you mean Xi.ai?
- aerodexis 2mo agotoo bad hypocrisy never got in the way of people making money