> "The technology at issue was among the most transformative many of us will see in our lifetimes"

A judge making on a ruling based on his opinion of how transformative a technology will be doesn't inspire confidence. There's an equivocation on the word "transformative" here -- not just transformative in the fair use sense, but transformative as in world-changing, impactful, revolutionary. The latter shouldn't matter in a case like this.

> Companies and individuals who willfully infringe on copyright can face significantly higher damages — up to $150,000 per work

Settling for 2% is a steal.

> In June, the District Court issued a landmark ruling on A.I. development and copyright law, finding that Anthropic’s approach to training A.I. models constitutes fair use,” Aparna Sridhar, Anthropic’s deputy general counsel, said in a statement.

This is the highest-order bit, not the $1.5B in settlement. Anthropic's guilty of pirating.

▲

Ekaros 7 days ago | parent [-]

Printing press, audio recording, movies, radio, television were also transformative. Did not get rid of copyright or actually brought them.

I feel it is insane that authors do not receive some sort of standard compensation for each training use. Say a few hundred to a few thousand depending on complexity of their work.

▲

verdverm 7 days ago | parent [-]

Why would they earn more from models reading their works than I would pay to read it?

▲

johnnyanmac 7 days ago | parent | next [-]

Same reason why the enterprise edition is more expensive than personal. Companies have more money to give and usually use it to generate profit. Individuals do not.

▲

Ekaros 7 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Because ones doing the training are profiting from it. Ai is not a human with limited time. And it is also owned by a company not a legal person.

I might find argument of comparing it to human when it is fully legal person and cutting power to it or deleting is treated as murder. Before that it is just bullshit.

And fundamentally reason for copy right to exist is to support creators and to promote them to create more. In world where massively funded companies can freely exploit their work and even in many case fully substitute that principle is failed.

▲

verdverm 7 days ago | parent [-]

If I buy a book, learn something, and then profit from it, should I also be paying more than the original price to read the book?

> Ai is not a human with limited time

AI is also bound by time, physics, and limited capacity. It does certain things better or faster than us, it fails miserably at certain things we don't even think about being complex (like opening a door)

> And it is also owned by a company not a legal person.

For the purpose of legalities, companies and persons are relatively equivalent, regardless of the merits, it is how it is

> In world where massively funded companies can freely exploit their work and even in many case fully substitute that principle is failed.

They paid for the books after getting caught, the other companies are paying for the copyrighted training materials

	▲	Ekaros 7 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		>They paid for the books after getting caught, the other companies are paying for the copyrighted training materials Are they paying reasonable compensation? Say like with streaming services, movie theatres, radio and tv stations. As a whole their model is much close to those than individuals buying books, cds or dvds... You might even consider Theatrical License or Public Performance License. Paid even if you have memorized a thing... LLMs are just bad technology that require massive amount of inputs so the authors cannot be compensated enough for it. And I fully believe they should be. And lot more than single copy of their work under entirely ill-fitting first-sale doctrine does.
	▲	johnnyanmac 7 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> If I buy a book, learn something, and then profit from it, should I also be paying more than the original price to read the book? Depends on how you do it. Clearly reading the book word from word is different from making a podcast talking about your interpretation of the book.