Nope, this was one of them. The case had two parts, one about the training and one about the downloading of pirated books. The judge issued a preliminary judgment about the training part, that was declared fair use without any further need to address it in trial. The downloading was what was proceeding to trial and what the settlement offer was about.
Comment on Pay-per-output? AI firms blindsided by beefed up robots.txt instructions.
ccunning@lemmy.world 1 month agoI guess that’s a different court case than the one where Anthropic offered to pay $1.5 billion?
FaceDeer@fedia.io 1 month ago
NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
Totally different. Anthropic could have bought all the books and trained on them. Pirating is a different topic.
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
You think buying the books would let them plagiarize ? That doesn’t seem to be normal in the “book buying” process.
NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
Doesn’t really matter what I think, its a different concept that pirating. Hence a different thing than what was getting ruled on.
I mean AI or not look at it this way: if a company wanted to train their workers and pirated all the training manuals, piracy is the issue, not the training.
Womble@piefed.world 1 month ago
Given the judege in that case flat out rejected the claim that there was any infringement for works they had legally aquired, yes.