People always say this like the tech industry wasn't culturally anti-copyright and pro-creative commons before. Those same people probably work at Meta and Anthropic, just like Google's book project which got them in trouble.
> People always say this like the tech industry wasn't culturally anti-copyright and pro-creative commons before.
I completely agree with that. The problem is that the current system is such that only billion dollar players can flout the rules, while everyone else is left in the dust.
Others already mentioned they lost their lawsuit. Should the fines have killed Anthropic? Would have been more fair and a less bad world?
Why not focus energy on being anti-aggressive copyright in general. These system won't ever be fair. It's just rent seeking enabled by the government and some people can afford the rent.
You’re talking past me for no real reason, mate. That’s precisely the point I’m making.
Young Carlos thinks it matters that Anthropic got sued when they can keep flouting the rules anyway, and I disagree: it’s not a fair system until we ditch the rent-seeking entirely.
They paid one of the largest settlements in world history. Should I guess that hackers are only satisfied with the public execution of the company leadership?
To pick a nit: Technically Anthropic didn't loose any lawsuit or pay any fine. They came to an agreement with the authors to pay them a $1,5 billion settlement.
Which was a lot of money per book.
Wasn't the Google project scanning physical books and not distributing them externally? That seems like a very different thing than torrenting or even downloading stuff uploaded by a third party.
Why the negativity? You can also as an individual do the same as Anthropic and get sued for billions. You have that option, don't let anybody hold you back!
Fair point, but I think the Pinkertons would be at my door within the hour if I started re-appropriating the art style of Studio Ghibli or Disney for commercial profit.
Anthropic paid a settlement of $1 500 000 000 to authors.