this post was submitted on 24 Jun 2025
626 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

71963 readers
3257 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Prox@lemmy.world 303 points 3 days ago (9 children)

FTA:

Anthropic warned against “[t]he prospect of ruinous statutory damages—$150,000 times 5 million books”: that would mean $750 billion.

So part of their argument is actually that they stole so much that it would be impossible for them/anyone to pay restitution, therefore we should just let them off the hook.

[–] Womble@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

The problem isnt anthropic get to use that defense, its that others dont. The fact the the world is in a place where people can be fined 5+ years of a western European average salary for making a copy of one (1) book that does not materially effect the copyright holder in any way is insane and it is good to point that out no matter who does it.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 159 points 3 days ago

Funny how that kind of thing only works for rich people

[–] artifex@lemmy.zip 121 points 3 days ago

Ah the old “owe $100 and the bank owns you; owe $100,000,000 and you own the bank” defense.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 59 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

This version of too big to fail is too big a criminal to pay the fines.

How about we lock them up instead? All of em.

[–] IllNess@infosec.pub 50 points 3 days ago

In April, Anthropic filed its opposition to the class certification motion, arguing that a copyright class relating to 5 million books is not manageable and that the questions are too distinct to be resolved in a class action.

I also like this one too. We stole so much content that you can't sue us. Naming too many pieces means it can't be a class action lawsuit.

[–] Buske@lemmy.world 24 points 3 days ago

Ahh cant wait for hedgefunds and the such to use this defense next.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Lawsuits are multifaceted. This statement isn't a a defense or an argument for innocence, it's just what it says - an assertion that the proposed damages are unreasonably high. If the court agrees, the plaintiff can always propose a lower damage claim that the court thinks is reasonable.

[–] modifier@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 days ago
[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago

What is means is they don't own the models. They are the commons of humanity, they are merely temporary custodians. The nightnare ending is the elites keeping the most capable and competent models for themselves as private play things. That must not be allowed to happen under any circumstances. Sue openai, anthropic and the other enclosers, sue them for trying to take their ball and go home. Disposses them and sue the investors for their corrupt influence on research.