| ▲ | strogonoff 2 days ago |
| It’s interesting to see how as soon as intellectual property theft starts to be critical for powerful interests the legal system magically gets more lenient about copyright enforcement. The balance between public good and protecting IP ownership of the creatives (which is, paradoxically, also part of the public good) has to be struck and enforced consistently. |
|
| ▲ | amadeuspagel 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| It's interesting to see how people look for powerful interests to explain simple and correct supreme court decisions. |
| |
| ▲ | strogonoff 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There’s an undeniable pattern, though. | |
| ▲ | foltik a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not really if you look at the prior context. It’s ruling after ruling in the favor of powerful interests (aka rights holders) when it comes to copyright enforcement. A simple correct ruling feels like a miracle. |
|
|
| ▲ | prepend 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| How is IP “theft” more important now than 20 years ago? |
| |
| ▲ | VanTheBrand 2 days ago | parent [-] | | AI training | | |
| ▲ | prepend 2 days ago | parent [-] | | AI training might be copyright infringement. But there’s no cases or laws to establish that. I don’t think this case or anything else has been affected by AI training on copyrighted material, if it is deemed infringing. | | |
| ▲ | mywittyname 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It's been demonstrated that some companies, even F10 ones, have been using pirated content to train their AI. | | |
| ▲ | prepend 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes, but not demonstrated that that training is illegal. | | |
| ▲ | red-iron-pine 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | why is "training" consumption more legal than "recreational" consumption? stealing bread to feed the birds vs stealing bread to feed your mom -- both are still stealing | | |
| ▲ | prepend 16 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | IANAL but my understanding it isn’t about consumption but about distribution and creating derived works. Viewing copyright material isnt illegal, distributing unlicensed copies is. EG, I can loan you a book I bought, or I can loan you a book I stole and you aren’t doing anything illegal in either case. Stealing bread doesnt matter because stealing physical things deprives the owner of their thing. IP infringement isn’t theft in the legal or moral aspect. | |
| ▲ | strogonoff 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Arguably, it’s worse, because it is commercial use at scale. It’s more akin to public redistribution than private consumption. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | acomjean 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/meta-torrented-o... They all seem to be using pirated books. Probably slightly better than just web stuff as it is presumably edited. The authors case was thrown out on narrow reasoning. But companies now live by different rules so I suspect they won’t be held to account. Even Disney/nintendo are unlikely to stop this… https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/judge-tosses-authors-ai-tr... | |
| ▲ | esseph 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | What? Anthropic ($1.5B+ Settlement): In September 2025, Anthropic agreed to pay at least $1.5 billion to settle a class-action lawsuit over using roughly 500,000 copyrighted books from "shadow libraries" to train their Claude LLMs. | | |
| ▲ | aaronmdjones 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | > > AI training might be copyright infringement. But there’s no cases or laws to establish that. > In September 2025, Anthropic agreed to pay at least $1.5 billion to settle a class-action lawsuit over using roughly 500,000 copyrighted books from "shadow libraries" to train their Claude LLMs. Yes, but not because they were training LLMs with it. The judge in the case found specifically that training the LLMs on the copyrighted material was not copyright infringement; the only copyright infringement Anthropic had committed was acquiring the material itself. In other words, if they had legally bought all of the books they used, they would have been able to train their LLMs on them with no recourse from rights holders. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | Permit 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Isn’t this decision in exact opposition to the point you’re trying to make? |
