[ctippett]

IANAL, but the parent comment quotes "any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement", which I take to mean it's the profit Anthropic stands to make based on its use of the pirated content that's recoverable.

Given the entire global economy is currently bullish on the potential profitability of AI, I dare say they got off incredibly lightly settling for just $3k per book.

[mediaman]

None of this matters, this is the judge approving a voluntary settlement reached between the parties last year.

If you think it should be different then you have to make a cogent argument why the public should get to interfere with a settlement the two sides mutually agree on.

[ctippett]

Note: I never said it should be different and certainly wasn't arguing for any side. I was merely making an observation that the settlement seemed like a good deal (for both parties) given the potential for Anthropic to be liable for a significantly greater amount depending on how the law would be interpreted if they went to trial.

[blackqueeriroh]

No, because you cannot prove that any individual book actually contributed meaningfully to Anthropic’s profit.

Exclude one book from the training dataset.

Did you make a worse model?

We actually know the answer to this, and it is: absolutely not.

The reality is this: your intellectual output is almost always only valuable to any company in existence in aggregate, never in isolation.