...so far.
this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2025
43 points (100.0% liked)
Legal News
564 readers
63 users here now
International and local legal news.
Basic rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Sensitive topics need NSFW flag
Some cases involve sensitive topics. Use common sense and if you think that the content might trigger someone, post it under NSFW flag.
3. Instance rules apply
All lemmy.zip instance rules listed in the sidebar will be enforced.
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Those that want to this to go against Anthropic, keep in mind that authors themselves oppose this.
Also backing Anthropic's appeal, advocates representing authors—including Authors Alliance, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Library Association, Association of Research Libraries, and Public Knowledge—pointed out that the Google Books case showed that proving ownership is anything but straightforward.
This seems to one of those cases where 80 year old judge is just too old to understand what he's doing.
Those that want to this to go against Anthropic, keep in mind that authors themselves oppose this.
Read the Amici-filing so that you understand the intent of the listed organisations. I don't think their stated reasons could really be said to align with the average authors opinion here.
There are also other groups representing authors that are not against this class action lawsuit moving forward.
To be clear, the ruling is that:
- Using legally acquired books for the purposes of training AI models is fair use
- Pirating books and then using them for the purposes of training AI models is a copyright violation
Anthropic is liable for the second offense, most likely for using the books3-dataset, containing 183000 pirated books. This liability would also extend to other AI labs who have made use of books3, like for example Meta, meaning that there's going to be a lot of money sponsoring the side of Anthropic in this case.
This seems to one of those cases where 80 year old judge is just too old to understand what he's doing.
Not at all, this is Alsup we're talking about, the same judge from the Oracle v Google, noted for acquiring the deep technical insight required to truly understand the cases he rules on.
I don't think you should dismiss him for his age without actually making a coherent argument on the law here.