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

Technology

71890 readers
4849 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 302 points 1 day ago (8 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.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 156 points 1 day ago

Funny how that kind of thing only works for rich people

[–] artifex@lemmy.zip 120 points 1 day 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 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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 51 points 1 day 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 25 points 1 day ago

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

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 1 points 23 hours 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.

[–] modifier@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago
[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Thistlewick@lemmynsfw.com 9 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

You’re right, each of the 5 million books’ authors should agree to less payment for their work, to make the poor criminals feel better.

If I steal $100 from a thousand people and spend it all on hookers and blow, do I get out of paying that back because I don’t have the funds? Should the victims agree to get $20 back instead because that’s more within my budget?

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 0 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

None of the above. Every professional in the world, including me, owes our careers to looking at examples of other people's work and incorporating their work into our own work without paying a penny for it. Freely copying and imitating what we see around us has been a human norm for thousands of years - in a process known as "the spread of civilization". Relatively recently it was demonized - for purely business reasons, not moral ones - by people who got rich selling copies of other people's work and paying them a pittance known as a "royalty". That little piece of bait on the hook has convinced a lot of people to put a black hat on behavior that had been considered normal forever. If angry modern enlightened justice warriors want to treat a business concept like a moral principle and get all sweaty about it, that's fine with me, but I'm more of a traditionalist in that area.