gpm

52 ms·

961.
by gpm 1y ago
Nope, the settlement specifically excludes actions after Aug 25th 2025 (not perpetuity), and it specifically excludes the output of LLMs (not one form of redistribution). Meanwhile it's not alleged that they redistributed the books in
962.
by gpm 1y ago
> But document does not say Anthropic bought EVERY book it pirated Yeah, I wouldn't make this exact claim either. For instance it's probably safe to assume that the pirate datasets contain some books that are out of circulation
963.
by gpm 1y ago
I think the most notable difference is that grand larceny actually deprived someone of something they would have otherwise had, while pirating something you couldn't afford to buy doesn't because there was no circumstance in which
964.
by gpm 1y ago
For what it's worth the friction exists for a reason, conflicts of interest. The lawyers suing Anthropic here will probably walk away with several hundred million dollars - they have won the lottery. If they managed to extract twice as
965.
by gpm 1y ago
Copies of these books are for sale for much less than that - very very few books demand a price that high. They're paying much more than the actual damages because US copyright law comes with statutory damages for infringement of regis
966.
by gpm 1y ago
I think you're thinking of this case [1], it was a monkey, it wasn't a painting but a selfie. A painting would have only made the no-copyright argument stronger. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie
967.
by gpm 1y ago
The consideration the viewer received was access to your private documents. The consideration you received was a promise to refrain from using those documents to train AI. I'm not a lawyer, but by my understanding of contract law consi
968.
by gpm 1y ago
> Where can I find source that says Anthropic bought the pirated books afterwards? I haven't seen this in any official document. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.43... > Also, do we
969.
by gpm 1y ago
They already, prior to this lawsuit, prior to serving public models, replaced this data set with one they made by scanning purchased books. Destroying the data set they aren't even using should have approximately zero effect.
970.
by gpm 1y ago
The jurisdictions I'm familiar with all give vague fair use/fair dealing exceptions which would cover some but not all copying (including scanning) with less than clear boundaries. I'd be interested to know if you knew of one
971.
by gpm 1y ago
Scanning is, under the right circumstances, allowed in the US, at least per the Second Circuit appeals court (Connecticut, New York, Vermont): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild%2C_Inc._v._Googl... .
972.
by gpm 1y ago
The latter (I know you're joking, but...) Bootstrapping in the startup world refers to starting a startup using only personal resources instead of using investors. Anthropic definitely had investors.
973.
by gpm 1y ago
Docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69058235/bartz-v-anthro... Proposed settlement: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.43...
974.
by gpm 1y ago
Libraries are neither anarchist free for alls nor are they operating under licensing terms with regards to physical books. They're merely doing what anyone is allowed to with the books that they own, loaning them out, because copyright
975.
by gpm 1y ago
I don't much like the idea of settling in stock, but I also think you're looking for criminal law here. Civil law, and this is a civil suit, is far more concerned with making damaged parties whole than acting as a deterrent. I und
976.
by gpm 1y ago
I wonder if Antrhopic's lawyers have enough of a sense of humor to take you up on that if you sent them an email asking...
977.
by gpm 1y ago
They just raised $13B, so yes https://www.anthropic.com/news/anthropic-raises-series-f-at-...
978.
by gpm 1y ago
The court has to give preliminary approval to the settlement first. After that there should be a notice period during which the lawyers will attempt to reach out and tell you what you need to do to receive your money. (Not a lawyer, not leg
979.
by gpm 1y ago
Yes to the first part. Put your site behind a login wall that requires users to sign a contract to that effect before serving them the content... get a lawyer to write that contract. Don't rely on copyright. I'm not sure to what e
980.
by gpm 1y ago
Yes, much. And they actually went and did that afterwards. They just pirated them first.
981.
by gpm 1y ago
That's not how class actions work. Ever. In this specific case the settlement caps the lawyer fees at 25%, and even that is subject to the courts approval. In addition they will ask for $250k total ($50k / plaintiff) for the lead
982.
by gpm 1y ago
And a low end of $750/item.
983.
by gpm 1y ago
I've definitely had systems freeze badly enough that our modern dumb spinners stop spinning... so at least they're still some sort of signal.
984.
by gpm 1y ago
Why is something that applies a roughly uniform downwards force to things in an area above it (or maybe between two plates of it?) implausible. It doesn't come with nearly the same level of implausibility (causality problems) that FTL
985.
by gpm 1y ago
Eh, the distinctions being that - With YouTube, unlike with torrenting, you aren't distributing the files. - You have no reason to believe that YouTube doesn't have an entirely valid license - while you do with torrents. YouTube t
986.
by gpm 1y ago
> So this is essentially a Popcorn Time-type-thing If I understand this software correctly, that's not a fair comparison. Popcorn time plays movies from sources that did not have the right to give you a copy (illegal torrents). This
987.
by gpm 1y ago
I know nothing of the sort. I know what section of the license is relevant to network requests, why the section of license you cited is not, and that a proxy stripping offers of source does not seem to violate the text (though it certainly
988.
by gpm 1y ago
> Each time you convey a covered work You didn't convey a covered work by using it to respond to a response or anywhere else in my hypothetical - and indeed that part of the license exactly matches the GPLv3. The relevant portion of
989.
by gpm 1y ago
Yeah I was just responding to the 64bit float thing, people overestimate floats.
990.
by gpm 1y ago
My understanding of the theory that they're advocating is that the AGPL requires that when you modify AGPL software you modify it to provide an offer of its source. And that you can comply with that completely, run the software, and th

More ›