zlacker

[return to "Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge"]
1. dehrma+DS[view] [source] 2025-07-07 16:02:04
>>pyman+(OP)
The important parts:

> Alsup ruled that Anthropic's use of copyrighted books to train its AI models was "exceedingly transformative" and qualified as fair use

> "All Anthropic did was replace the print copies it had purchased for its central library with more convenient space-saving and searchable digital copies for its central library — without adding new copies, creating new works, or redistributing existing copies"

It was always somewhat obvious that pirating a library would be copyright infringement. The interesting findings here are that scanning and digitizing a library for internal use is OK, and using it to train models is fair use.

◧◩
2. 6gvONx+hW[view] [source] 2025-07-07 16:25:05
>>dehrma+DS
You skipped quotes about the other important side:

> But Alsup drew a firm line when it came to piracy.

> "Anthropic had no entitlement to use pirated copies for its central library," Alsup wrote. "Creating a permanent, general-purpose library was not itself a fair use excusing Anthropic's piracy."

That is, he ruled that

- buying, physically cutting up, physically digitizing books, and using them for training is fair use

- pirating the books for their digital library is not fair use.

◧◩◪
3. throwa+QY[view] [source] 2025-07-07 16:39:13
>>6gvONx+hW
So all they have to do is go and buy a copy of each book they pirated. They will have ceased and desisted.
◧◩◪◨
4. superf+p01[view] [source] 2025-07-07 16:50:12
>>throwa+QY
I'm trying to find the quote, but I'm pretty sure the judge specifically said that going and buying the book after the fact won't absolve them of liability. He said that for the books they pirated they broke the law and should stand trial for that and they cannot go back and un-break in by buying a copy now.

Found it: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/federal-judge-rules-c...

> “That Anthropic later bought a copy of a book it earlier stole off the internet will not absolve it of liability for the theft,” [Judge] Alsup wrote, “but it may affect the extent of statutory damages.”

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. freeja+hc1[view] [source] 2025-07-07 17:53:49
>>superf+p01
They also argued that they in no way could ever actually license all the materials they ingested
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. dmd+rg1[view] [source] 2025-07-07 18:18:51
>>freeja+hc1
I love this argument so much. "But judge, there's no way I could ever afford to buy those jewels, so stealing them must be OK."
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. Anthon+Km1[view] [source] 2025-07-07 19:01:10
>>dmd+rg1
The argument is more along the lines of, negotiating with millions of individuals each over a single copy of a work would cause the transaction costs to exceed the payments, and that kind of efficiency loss is the sort of thing fair use exists to prevent. It's not socially beneficial for the law to require you to create $2 in deadweight loss in order to transfer $1, and the cost to the author of not selling a single additional copy is not the thing they were really objecting to.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. freeja+zr1[view] [source] 2025-07-07 19:37:31
>>Anthon+Km1
> and that kind of efficiency loss is the sort of thing fair use exists to prevent.

No it's not. And you ever heard of a publishing house? They don't need to negotiate with every single author individually. That's preposterous.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. Anthon+Xr1[view] [source] 2025-07-07 19:40:19
>>freeja+zr1
It kind of is though?

It's not the only reason fair use exists, but it's the thing that allows e.g. search engines to exist, and that seems pretty important.

> And you ever heard of a publishing house? They don't need to negotiate with every single author individually. That's preposterous.

There are thousands of publishing houses and millions of self-published authors on top of that. Many books are also out of print or have unclear rights ownership.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
10. freeja+Gv1[view] [source] 2025-07-07 20:05:51
>>Anthon+Xr1
>It kind of is though?

No, it kinda isn't. Show me anything that supports this idea beyond your own immediate conjecture right now.

>It's not the only reason fair use exists, but it's the thing that allows e.g. search engines to exist, and that seems pretty important.

No, that's the transformative element of what a search engine provides. Search engines are not legal because they can't contact each licensor, they are legal because they are considered hugely transformative features.

>There are thousands of publishing houses and millions of self-published authors on top of that. Many books are also out of print or have unclear rights ownership.

Okay, and? How many customers does Microsoft bill on a monthly basis?

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧
11. Anthon+zA1[view] [source] 2025-07-07 20:38:11
>>freeja+Gv1
> Show me anything that supports this idea beyond your own immediate conjecture right now

It's inherent in the nature of the test. The most important fair use factor is the effect on the market for the work, so if the use would be uneconomical without fair use then the effect on the market is negligible because the alternative would be that the use doesn't happen rather than that the author gets paid for it.

> No, that's the transformative element of what a search engine provides. Search engines are not legal because they can't contact each licensor, they are legal because they are considered hugely transformative features.

To make a search engine you have to do two things. One is to download a copy of the whole internet, the other is to create a search index. I'm talking about the first one, you're talking about the second one.

> Okay, and? How many customers does Microsoft bill on a monthly basis?

Microsoft does this with an automated system. There is no single automated system where you can get every book ever written, and separately interfacing with all of the many systems needed in order to do it is the source of the overhead.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦▧▨
12. const_+Gh2[view] [source] 2025-07-08 04:36:14
>>Anthon+zA1
I think the notion that some sort of god-given right to "scale" can absolve you of laws is preposterous.

If your business model is not economically sustainable in the current legal landscape you operate in, the correct outcome is you go out of business.

There's lots and lots of potential businesses, infinite in fact, that fall into this understanding. They don't exist because they can't because we don't want them to, so you never see them. Which might give the impression of a right to scale, but no, it does not exist.

[go to top]