zlacker

>>moose4+(OP)
The HN crowd dislikes brick-and-mortar landlords but often sides with charging rent for certain bits. Which side will prevail?

Interesting excerpt:

> “We will have a trial on the pirated copies used to create Anthropic’s central library and the resulting damages,” Judge Alsup wrote in the decision. “That Anthropic later bought a copy of a book it earlier stole off the internet will not absolve it of liability for theft but it may affect the extent of statutory damages.”

Language of “pirated” and “theft” are from the article. If they did realize a mistake and purchased copies after the fact, why should that be insufficient?

>>gbacon+K2
why would it erase the mistake? you pirated first.

>>PunchT+A5
Who is the victim, and how was that person not made whole?

>>gbacon+Ic
The copyright holder. That person was not made whole because of the time value of money. I stole $1000 from you in January and returned it to you in June: why should you happily give me a zero interest loan?

>>kccqzy+HZ
No royalty contract is getting an author a thousand bucks per sale. If you have to wildly exaggerate to make your point, then the point isn’t compelling.

Books have a resale market. Every “lost sale” isn’t necessarily of a new purchase from a bookstore or Amazon.

Copyright has a place. Rent-seeking authors attacking LLM owners is not a sympathetic case. Said authors are demanding to have their ideas relegated to unknown backwaters. It makes the authors worse off. It makes the community poorer. Cui bono?

>>gbacon+Ue1
We are not talking about a single sale. We are talking about millions of books.