[Aurornis]

This is a settlement that the authors and Anthropic agreed upon.

They agreed on the amount last year. The judge approved it now.

The lawsuit was for the way the books were acquired. They already ruled that it's not infringement to use the books.

The award was $3,000 per book, which is about 100X higher than it would have cost to buy the books.

It's never going to appease the people who demand companies be sued into collapse, but given that both parties came to an agreement and the damages are 100X higher than what a book costs, it looks reasonable to me.

[nadermx]

This case did at least shed light on the fair use argument.

[ekianjo]

100x the books? Buying a book does not let you redistribute its contents.

If you are selling more than 100 books you are clearly losing out

[UqWBcuFx6NV4r]

That ISN’T what this settlement is about? Genuinely please just once read past the headline.

[Aurornis]

The judge already ruled that training on the books does not constitute reselling their content.

The authors were only owed money for the piracy.

[pier25]

> This is a settlement that the authors and Anthropic agreed upon.

The authors or the publishers?

I have a hard time believing they agreed with the millions of authors they pirated.

[UqWBcuFx6NV4r]

There were individual authors in the class. They initiated it. Individual authors were allowed to sign up.

If you’re so interested, go read past the headline. Maybe you’ll find that you’re working about what “authors” will agree to.

[skippyfish]

To sign up for what? The experience of approximately every author on the planet is that they found out that Anthropic did something bad at the same time they were "opted into" the class. The only thing they could do is opt out and litigate on their own against a company with a valuation approaching $1T.

This is a sweet deal for lawyers and for publishers, and nothing else.

[scotty79]

> The award was $3,000 per book, which is about 100X higher than it would have cost to buy the books.

How many of the authors would license their book for endless creation of derivative works for that amount?

[Aurornis]

The judge already ruled that it was fair for Anthropic to use books for training if they acquired them legally.

[protocolture]

I dont see the relevance. If Anthropic had bought the book at the store, shredded the spine, scanned the pages and trained on that data instead, there wouldnt have been an issue.

Authors cant simply license away fair use. If it could be dismissed so easily the right wouldn't exist.

[ollysb]

Creating derivative products you charge for surely can't be considered fair use?

[timmmmmmay]

Of course it is. If I write a movie review and sell it to a magazine or whatever, it's derived from the movie, and it's fair use, and I don't need to ask the movie owner for permission first, or give them a cut of my sales. Even if I use some reasonable number of screenshots and video clips, as long as the resulting work is "transformative" i.e. actually a new work, a movie review instead of a copy of the movie.

Do you want this to work any other way? I constantly see people in the AI debate working themselves into wildly copyright maximalist positions. I actually don't think that we should give every author veto power over a book review!

[protocolture]

>I constantly see people in the AI debate working themselves into wildly copyright maximalist positions

I really dont get this. I know its that conflation fallacy or whatever, but I was under the impression we had sort of gotten over copyright maximalism as a society after Napster etc.

Whats worse is that, meaningful reform in this space has basically been waiting on a multi billion dollar corporation to come along and push it forward. So now that we have an opportunity to expand and globalise fair use, the sudden and quite angry opposition weirds me out to no end.

[_carbyau_]

There's two issues with copyright.

1. author owns the right to distribute copies of the work

2. this right goes on for faaaaaar too long.

I don't have an issue with 1. You had a good idea, you implemented it, you deserve something for it. Given some people got sued into oblivion with ridiculous dollar value outcomes on a per unit basis - why doesn't this apply here? Sure 1.5 billion is a lot. But the number of infringments is insane and the company is approaching a trillion in valuation. You could make it ten times that number.

I do have an issue with 2. Sure, you had a good idea, you implemented it, you deserve something for it. But after 20 years, you should be able to come up with another idea or just work like the rest of us. Going for 50, 70, 90+ years with the rewards going to estate heirs? Fuck that.

So yeah, I am both against copyright AND surprised at the slap on the wrist for what happened here.

[pandaman]

IANAL but as an IP creator I have not heard of "derivative products" in the copyright context. There are "derivative works", which are covered by the same copyright as the original. For example, a translation to another language is a derivative work, a novelisation of a movie, a screen adaptation of a book etc. If some author could have proven that any Anthromic model is a derivative work of theirs then they had the copyright on that model and made mad bucks licensing it back to Anthropic.

[gruez]

>Creating derivative products you charge for surely can't be considered fair use?

All US courts so far have ruled yes.

[janderland]

YouTubers monetize fair use all the time. Is that significantly different?

[paulddraper]

Probably few, but irrelevant as the ruling was it was not a derivative work.