I would imagine that for over 99% of the books covered in this lawsuit, they're earning less than $3000 per book.

Put another way, their revenues wouldn't drop much if they simply hadn't trained on those 99%.

IANAL, but the parent comment quotes "any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement", which I take to mean it's the profit Anthropic stands to make based on its use of the pirated content that's recoverable.

Given the entire global economy is currently bullish on the potential profitability of AI, I dare say they got off incredibly lightly settling for just $3k per book.

	▲	blackqueeriroh 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		No, because you cannot prove that any individual book actually contributed meaningfully to Anthropic’s profit. Exclude one book from the training dataset. Did you make a worse model? We actually know the answer to this, and it is: absolutely not. The reality is this: your intellectual output is almost always only valuable to any company in existence in aggregate, never in isolation.
	▲	mediaman 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		None of this matters, this is the judge approving a voluntary settlement reached between the parties last year. If you think it should be different then you have to make a cogent argument why the public should get to interfere with a settlement the two sides mutually agree on.