|
|
|
|
|
by bonoboTP
360 days ago
|
|
> It's different but not in ways that make such interventions irrelevant e.g. why would we only care about lost sales? If copyright has been violated as a necessary means to generate new value, haven't the content creators earned this value? Indeed the company should purchase the books. If they obtain copies in a process that violates copyright, then that's indeed a violation of copyright. The current decision does not rule on the legality of obtaining the books without purchasing. |
|
However, that option was ultimately not pursued as instead...
>> Anthropic spent many millions of dollars to purchase millions of print books, often in used condition. Then, its service providers stripped the books from their bindings, cut their pages to size, and scanned the books into digital form — discarding the paper originals. Each print book resulted in a PDF copy containing images of the scanned pages with machine-readable text (including front and back cover scans for softcover books). Anthropic created its own catalog of bibliographic metadata for the books it was acquiring. It acquired copies of millions of books, including of all works at issue for all Authors.
(from the ruling)