zlacker

>>pyman+(OP)
Here is how individuals are treated for massive copyright infringement:

https://investors.autodesk.com/news-releases/news-release-de...

>>bgwalt+pE
Peterson was copying and selling pirated software.

Come up with a better comparison.

>>farceS+GV
Anthropic is selling a service that incorporates these pirated works.

>>organs+ZV
That a service incorporating the authors' works exists is not at issue. The plaintiffs' claims are, as summarized by Alsup:

  First, Authors argue that using works to train Claude’s underlying LLMs 
  was like using works to train any person to read and write, so Authors 
  should be able to exclude Anthropic from this use (Opp. 16). 

  Second, to that last point, Authors further argue that the training was 
  intended to memorize their works’ creative elements — not just their 
  works’ non-protectable ones (Opp. 17).

  Third, Authors next argue that computers nonetheless should not be 
  allowed to do what people do. 

https://media.npr.org/assets/artslife/arts/2025/order.pdf

>>adolph+U11
> That a service incorporating the authors' works exists is not at issue.

It's not an issue because it's not currently illegal because nobody could have foreseen this years ago.

But it is profiting off of the unpaid work of millions. And there's very little chance of change because it's so hard to pass new protection laws when you're not Disney.

>>xdenni+p91
It's not an issue because it's not what this case was about, as the linked document explicitly states. The Authors did not contest the legality of the model's outputs, only the inputs used in training.