• panda_abyss@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    2 days ago

    Well maybe they shouldn’t have done of the largest violations of copyright and intellectual property ever.

    Probably the largest single instance ever.

    • ivanafterall ☑️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      I feel like it can’t even be close. What would even compete? I know I’ve gone a little overboard with my external hard drive, but I don’t think even I’m to that level.

  • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    2 days ago

    I am holding my breath! Will they walk free, or get a $10 million fine and then keep doing what every other thieving, embezzling, looting, polluting, swindling, corrupting, tax evading mega-corporation have been doing for a century!

    • cmeu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      Would be better if the fee were nominal, but that all their training data must never be used. Start them over from scratch and make it illegal to use anything that it knows now. Knee cap these frivolous little toys

    • hansolo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      This is how corruption works - the fine is the cost of business. Being given only a fine of $10 million is such a win that they’ll raise $10 billion in new investment on its back.

  • WereCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 days ago

    We just need to show that ChatGPT and alike can generate Nintendo based content and let it fight out between them

    • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      They will probably just merge into another mega-golem controlled by one of the seven people who own the planet.

      • ivanafterall ☑️@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Mario, voiced by Chris Pratt, will become the new Siri, then the new persona for all AI.

        In the future, all global affairs will be divided across the lines of Team Mario and Team Luigi. Then the final battle, then the end.

      • Korhaka@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Only 80% of it, the other 7 billion of us own anything from nothing to a few hundred square metres each.

  • Null User Object@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    189
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 days ago

    threatens to “financially ruin” the entire AI industry

    No. Just the LLM industry and AI slop image and video generation industries. All of the legitimate uses of AI (drug discovery, finding solar panel improvements, self driving vehicles, etc) are all completely immune from this lawsuit, because they’re not dependent on stealing other people’s work.

    • A Wild Mimic appears!@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      But it would also mean that the Internet Archive is illegal, even tho they don’t profit, but if scraping the internet is a copyright violation, then they are as guilty as Anthropic.

      • carg@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Scrapping the Internet is not illegal. All AI companies did much more beyond that, they accessed private writings, private code, copyrighted images. they scanned copyrighted books (and then destroyed them), downloaded terabytes of copyrighted torrents … etc

        So, the message is like piracy is OK when it’s done massively by a big company. They’re claiming “fair use” and most judges are buying it (or being bought?)

      • magikmw@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        IA doesn’t make any money off the content. Not that LLM companies do, but that’s what they’d want.

        • axmo@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Profit (or even revenue) is not required for it to be considered an infringement, in the current legal framework.

        • CosmoNova@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          And this is exactly the reason why I think the IA will be forced to close down while AI companies that trained their models on it will not only stay but be praised for preserving information in an ironic twist. Because one side does participate in capitalism and the other doesn’t. They will claim AI is transformative enough even when it isn’t because the overly rich invested too much money into the grift.

  • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    113
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    As Anthropic argued, it now “faces hundreds of billions of dollars in potential damages liability at trial in four months” based on a class certification rushed at “warp speed” that involves “up to seven million potential claimants, whose works span a century of publishing history,” each possibly triggering a $150,000 fine.

    So you knew what stealing the copyrighted works could result in, and your defense is that you stole too much? That’s not how that works.

    • zlatko@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      3 days ago

      Actually that usually is how it works. Unfortunately.

      *Too big to fail" was probably made up by the big ones.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      3 days ago

      The purpose of copyright is to drive works into the public domain. Works are only supposed to remain exclusive to the artist for a very limited time, not a “century of publishing history”.

      The copyright industry should lose this battle. Copyright exclusivity should be shorter than patent exclusivity.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          3 days ago

          Their winning of the case reinforces a harmful precedent.

          At the very least, the claims of those members of the class that are based on >20-year copyrights should be summarily rejected.

          • snooggums@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            3 days ago

            Copyright owners winning the case maintains the status quo.

            The AI companies winning the case means anything leaked on the internet or even just hosted by a company can be used by anyone, including private photos and communication.

            • A Wild Mimic appears!@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 days ago

              Copyright owners are then the new AI companies, and compared to now where open source AI is a possibility, it will never be, because only they will have enough content to train models. And without any competition, enshittification will go full speed ahead, meaning the chatbots you don’t like will still be there, and now they will try to sell you stuff and you can’t even choose a chatbot that doesn’t want to upsell you.

  • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    An important note here, the judge has already ruled in this case that "using Plaintiffs’ works “to train specific LLMs [was] justified as a fair use” because “[t]he technology at issue was among the most transformative many of us will see in our lifetimes.” during the summary judgement order.

    The plaintiffs are not suing Anthropic for infringing on their copyright, the court has already ruled that it was so obvious that they could not succeed with that argument that it could be dismissed. Their only remaining claim is that Anthropic downloaded the books from piracy sites using bittorrent

    This isn’t about LLMs anymore, it’s a standard “You downloaded something on Bittorrent and made a company mad”-type case that has been going on since Napster.

    Also, the headline is incredibly misleading. It’s ascribing feelings to an entire industry based on a common legal filing that is not by itself noteworthy. Unless you really care about legal technicalities, you can stop here.


    The actual news, the new factual thing that happened, is that the Consumer Technology Association and the Computer and Communications Industry Association filed an Amicus Brief, in an appeal of an issue that Anthropic the court ruled against.

    This is pretty normal legal filing about legal technicalities. This isn’t really newsworthy outside of, maybe, some people in the legal profession who are bored.

    The issue was class certification.

    Three people sued Anthropic. Instead of just suing Anthropic on behalf of themselves, they moved to be certified as class. That is to say that they wanted to sue on behalf of a larger group of people, in this case a “Pirated Books Class” of authors whose books Anthropic downloaded from the book piracy websites.

    The judge ruled they can represent the class, Anthropic appealed the ruling. During this appeal an industry group filed an Amicus brief with arguments supporting Anthropic’s argument. This is not uncommon, The Onion famously filed an Amicus brief with the Supreme Court when they were about to rule on issues of parody. Like everything The Onion writes, it’s a good piece of satire: link

    • turtlesareneat@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      What um, what court system do you think is going to make that happen? Cause the current one is owned by an extremely pro-AI administration. If anything gets appealed to SCOTUS they will rule for AI.

      • Ann Archy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        The people who literally own this planet have investigated the people who literally own this planet and found that they literally own this planet and what the FUCK are you going to do about it, bacteria of the planet?

        ^

        • Plurrbear@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          What in the absolute fuck are you talking about?! Your comment is asinine, “bacteria of the planet” the fuck?! Do you have the same “worm in the brain” that RFK claims to have because you sound just as stupid as him?

          You claim people “own” this planet… um… what in the absolute fuck? Yes, people with money have always push an agenda but “owning” it, is beyond the dumbest statement.

  • PushButton@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    Let’s go baby! The law is the law, and it applies to everybody

    If the “genie doesn’t go back in the bottle”, make him pay for what he’s stealing.

    • Zetta@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      The law absolutely does not apply to everybody, and you are well aware of that.

    • SugarCatDestroyer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      I just remembered the movie where the genie was released from the bottle of a real genie, he turned the world into chaos by freeing his own kind, and if it weren’t for the power of the plot, I’m afraid people there would have become slaves or died out.

      Although here it is already necessary to file a lawsuit for theft of the soul in the literal sense of the word.

        • SugarCatDestroyer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Damn, what did you watch those masterpieces on? What kind of smoke were you sitting on then? Although I don’t know what secret materials you’re talking about. Maybe I watched something wrong… And what an episode?

      • BussyCat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        It’s not because they would only train on things they own which is an absolute tiny fraction of everything that everyone owns. It’s like complaining that a rich person gets to enjoy their lavish estate when the alternative is they get to use everybody’s home in the world.

          • BussyCat@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 days ago

            They have 0.2T in assets the world has around 660T in assets which as I said before is a tiny fraction. Obviously both hold a lot of assets that aren’t worthwhile to AI training such as theme parks but when you consider a single movie that might be worth millions or billions has the same benefit for AI training as another movie worth thousands. the amount of assets Disney owned is not nearly as relevant as you are making it out to be

            • ShadowWalker@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              Until they charge people to use their AI.

              It’ll be just like today except that it will be illegal for any new companies to try and challenge the biggest players.

              • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                why would I use their AI? on top of that, wouldn’t it be in their best interests to allow people to use their AI with as few restrictions as possible in order to maximize market saturation?

  • crystalmerchant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    3 days ago

    Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

    And yet, despite 20 years of experience, the only side Ashley presents is the technologists’ side.

  • SugarCatDestroyer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Unfortunately, this will probably lead to nothing: in our world, only the poor seem to be punished for stealing. Well, corporations always get away with everything, so we sit on the couch and shout “YES!!!” for the fact that they are trying to console us with this.

    • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      This issue is not so cut and dry. The AI companies are stealing from other companies more than ftom individual people. Publishing companies are owned by some very rich people. And they want thier cut.

      This case may have started out with authors, but it is mentioned that it could turn into publishing companies vs AI companies.

  • Deflated0ne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    Good. Burn it down. Bankrupt them.

    If it’s so “critical to national security” then nationalize it.

    • A Wild Mimic appears!@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 days ago

      the “burn it down” variant would only lead to the scenario where the copyright holders become the AI companies, since they have the content to train it. AI will not go away, it might change ownership to someone worse tho.

      nationalizing sounds better; even better were to put in under UNESCO-stewardship.