Remix.run Logo
phoghed 2 hours ago

It’s been determined that training on lawfully acquired works is fair use. Presumably in this discussion of shredding physical books Dario and Sam are not pulling heists at the local library.

I’m sure there’s ongoing litigation, and better sources than this, but fair use was determined in June 2025 in a sf federal district court https://www.goodwinlaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/06/...

Similar conclusion vs meta https://www.jw.com/news/insights-kadrey-meta-bartz-anthropic...

And the more recent $1.5B settlement did not overturn it https://www.reuters.com/world/us-judge-approves-anthropics-1...

sofixa an hour ago | parent | next [-]

No, courts so far in the jurisdictions which have heard such cases, have ruled it's fair use. There is plenty of ongoing litigation in many jurisdictions, so it's way too early to just decree "it's been determined". It likely won't be for years to come.

bscphil an hour ago | parent [-]

Why did Anthropic settle with authors for 1.5 billion then? Surely their lawyers must have decided there's a pretty good chance of judges ultimately deciding that it is copyright infringement?

rileymat2 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

They had illegally obtained books. 1.5 billion is an incredible deal compared to the per book infringement fine. https://fortune.com/2026/07/21/anthropic-copyright-settlemen...

hn_acker an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Anthropic settled because even though the training is fair use, Anthropic did not acquire all of the training material through legal means.

nativeit 24 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If a case is settled by the parties, it cannot be cited as establishing precedent.

xienze 30 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

You could also ask why the other side agreed to that settlement. It's not a one-way street.

shimman an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Might surprise people to learn but the law isn't the final arbiter on what is moral or just. The law only decides what is legal and as we've seen over our lived history as humans, many "legal" things may not be those we want society to uphold.

TeMPOraL 27 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

It's not really a surprise to many here, but we don't want to go back there too often, because that topic is well trodden - the intellectual property in its current form is far worse offender against "what is moral or just" than anything LLM companies ever did.

In fact, the whole problem of shredding books (destructive format-shifting) was created by copyright laws in the first place, and that in itself is a concession hard won against the IP establishment - and all that way before LLMs became a thing.

phoghed an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes IP theft and fair use are discussing legality, not morality. Whether or not it’s moral for someone to make money off somebody else’s labor or Reddit comments, I don’t want to get into a discussion about personally.

roarcher 6 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

The comment you originally replied to was clearly discussing morality. You don't get to insert your little "erm, ackshually" and then pretend to be a neutral observer.

rc5150 33 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Okay, then step aside while others discuss the morality.

phoghed 18 minutes ago | parent [-]

You don’t seem to be doing so, but I eagerly await your doubtless profound and unique insights on the topic.

> step aside

Isn’t that what I explicitly just did in the comment you replied to?

27 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
ButlerianJihad 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You don’t know what “Fair Use” is.

Fair Use is not an activity that you engage in. Fair Use is not a category with criteria that you meet. Fair Use is not a precedent that paves the way for everything afterwards.

Fair Use is a defense that can be used in court when you’re named in a copyright lawsuit. Fair Use is how you justify your actions before the court finds infringement.

hn_acker an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Fair use is a legal defense with a specific test to demonstrate whether a particular instance of use of a copyrighted work is not infringement. Although fair use is always evaluated on a case by case basis, fair use does produce some precedent (example at [1], not related to TFA), and fair use is not mere justification [2]:

> Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work... is not an infringement of copyright.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_....

[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107

phoghed 20 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Sure, everywhere it’s been legally tested so far and there’s been a conclusion, the outcome has been in favor of the LLM trainer. They just can’t steal the books, they have to pay for them. So claims by random HN users that it’s IP theft and copyright infringement and all that are currently incorrect.

Now if you look at how fair use is used colloquially, everyone understood what I meant except the autistic pedants.

gruez 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>>It’s been determined that training on lawfully acquired works is fair use

>You don’t know what “Fair Use” is.

This isn't the opinion of some armchair HN commenter. Actual judges have affirmed this, as other commenters in this thread has pointed out.

parineum 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

s/fair use/ip theft

The comment uses the same language as it's parent.

parineum 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Being informed is much too high a barrier for the people who just want to pretend that everyone with money is lex luther.

arduanika an hour ago | parent [-]

If you're going to call people ignorant, you should probably know how to spell the name of the character you're referencing.