Comment on Judge backs AI firm over use of copyrighted books

gedaliyah@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• QuadratureSurfer@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  To anyone who is reading this comment without reading through the article. This ruling doesn’t mean that it’s okay to pirate for building a model. Anthropic will still need to go through trial for that:

  But he rejected Anthropic’s request to dismiss the case, ruling the firm would have to stand trial over its use of pirated copies to build its library of material.

  source

  • Artisian@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I also read through the judgement, and I think it’s better for anthropic than you describe. He distinguishes three issues: A) Use any written material they get their hands on to train the model (and the resulting model doesn’t just reproduce the works).

    B) Buy a single copy of a print book, scan it, and retain the digital copy for a company library (for all sorts of future purposes).

    C) Pirate a book and retain that copy for a company library (for all sorts of future purposes).

    A and B were fair use by summary judgement. Manning this judge thinks it’s clear cut in anthropics favor. C will go to trial.

    source

    • xthexder@l.sw0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      C could still bankrupt the company depending on how trial goes. They pirated a lot of books.

      source

      • Artisian@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        As a civil matter, the publishing houses are more likely to get the full money if anthropic stays in business (and does well). So it might be bad, but I’m really skeptical about bankruptcy (and I’m not hearing anyone seriously floating it?)

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Xerxos@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        It might be that bad. Most ‘damage’ (as publishers see it) comes from distribution, not the download itself. Depending on how they acquired the books, it might be not be much if a problem.

        source