This but unironically. "did it for the benefit of other people" is redistribution, which is straightforward copyright infringement, even if you think it's a laudable act. AI training was the reverse, because courts have so far ruled is fair use. When AI companies were engaging in piracy, they were sanctioned as well.

▲

matheusmoreira 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> When AI companies were engaging in piracy, they were sanctioned as well.

Some token settlement for an insignificant fraction of their revenue is not in any way a "sanction".

▲

gruez 4 hours ago | parent [-]

That just feels like more of a general complaint about how the justice system is set up. The same logic applies to how a $300 speeding ticket "is not in any way a "sanction"" for someone making $1M/year, or even a well paid SWE reading HN.

▲

sbayg 4 hours ago | parent [-]

I feel you but are you possibly conflating civil and criminal justice? Tickets don’t scale with net worth of defendants, but class action penalties often do.

▲

gruez 3 hours ago | parent [-]

>but class action penalties often do.

Do they? Or only so far as "if you have 1000x the revenue, you probably also have 1000x the customers that you have wronged, each of which are entitled to damages as well"?

	▲	sbayg 26 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Courts do award higher damages, specifically punitive damages, to punish and deter wealthy or large corporate defendants. In civil law, the defendant's net worth is a recognized legal factor because a small penalty on a massive corporation wouldn't incentivize them to change their illegal behavior.