"The authors were never deprived of any ability to continue to sell their work through normal channels" this isn't exactly true is it? If the "AI" used their books for training, then it's able to provide information/value/content from them, lowering the incentive for people to buy these books.

▲

vidarh 3 days ago | parent [-]

However, the judge does not appear to believe they have any legal right to protection from that in this case. The settlement is over their use of pirated copies instead of buying one copy of each of the works in question.

▲

jimmydorry 3 days ago | parent [-]

I haven't read this particular case, but typically judges will keep the judgement as narrow as possible... so it may entirely be the case that these IP owners or in similar future cases may also have legal right to protection from it.

	▲	vidarh 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		The judge has already ruled that using books to train AI does not in itself violate US copyright law, and so the surviving claims from plaintffs were relating to Anthropic pirating books.