You may be conflating the book thing with internet scanning.

On the book case, a class action case was brought to court and it was settled. There's no use in bringing it up further, it has been settled, and it bears no relation to the Anthropic v China case.

You like programming? Think of encapsulation, imagine if you had to think about f(x) but someone brings up y, now you have to think about f(x,y) and what other parameters might bear relationship? The law simplifies by compartimentalizing. And it doesn't even bear a tradeoff, judgment(case1,case2) isn't better than judgment(case1)+judgment(case2).

▲

xpct 3 hours ago | parent [-]

My response was directed to your insincere characterization of Anthropic's actions. As we can see from the comments here, the public opinion hasn't settled the same way as the court case has, and that's why it's still discussed.

	▲	TZubiri 44 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		But 'the public opinion' doesn't matter. The case was brought by copyright holders to the courts, and Anthropic and the copyright holders made a deal wherein the copyright holders were paid money in exchange for dropping the case and all claims to the intellectual property of Anthropic's derivative product. If the damnified have considered the matter settled, why would it matter what third parties have to say about it? Third parties would have pushed for more compensation, or ownership of the derivate product. If you feel damnified yourself you can open a case and explain why the actions of Anthropic have hurt you personally. Otherwise it is a matter that doesn't concern the general public, we have no say in it and there is no right to be offended on behalf of parties that have already settled the argument.