• Randomgal@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    9 hours ago

    I hope you realize they aren’t fighting for the rights of artists. They are fighting for their exclusive right to exploit artists.

    • kibiz0r@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Absolutely. There’s not a good guy on either side here.

      If AI vendors win, it’s basically this:

    • BadlyDrawnRhino @aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 hours ago

      You’re not wrong, but if they win against AI, all artists will benefit because of the precedent that it would set.

      What I think will actually happen if this is looking to not go in the tech bros’ favour is that they’ll settle and make a potential deal with large copyright holders for ongoing usage, and that would screw individual artists.

  • TehPers@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    10 hours ago

    As Anthropic argued, it now “faces hundreds of billions of dollars in potential damages liability at trial in four months”

    Well sure when you potentially violate almost every active copyright for multiple kinds of media, you end up potentially being liable for some wild damages. That’s the whole point.

    Whether or not the work was sufficiently transformative will be an interesting question of course, but they should have known up front that this legal battle was a risk that their business could need to face.

  • Womble@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    10 hours ago

    For all those cheering on the copyright mafia going after Anthropic, consider that some of the groups supporting anthropic against this massive overreach of “we get to decide how you use our works” include:

    • Authors Alliance
    • the Electronic Frontier Foundation
    • American Library Association
    • Association of Research Libraries
    • Public Knowledge

    Maybe this is not such a great thing?

    • u_tamtam@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 hours ago

      It’s pretty simple: if Antropic wins, that’s the end of the US copyright law, replaced by the diktat of the tech bros (worse for artists, and for anyone else but the tech oligarchs). If Antropic loses, nothing changes and we get to fight the (comparatively tiny) copyright mafia for another day.

    • kibiz0r@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Indeed. I want AI companies to get regulated into smithereens, but not through expansion of copyright law. There would be too much collateral damage, and it wouldn’t even work.

  • artyom@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Never going to happen with the current administration. Just a big Dog and Pony show.

    • artifex@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      12 hours ago

      It has to set some precedent though. Either there are valid reasons to violate copyright are there aren’t.

        • artifex@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Ok reading a little more the class has been certified but it hasn’t gone to trial, so there’s still a possibility of a closed-door settlement of some sort, though given the number of parties involved that seems unlikely. Maybe I’m just being optimistic. But if it goes to trial and makes it to judgement there will either have to be cases where using copyrighted materials to train AI (which seriously how is that not for generating derivative works) is found to be ok, or copyright will be held sacrosanct and the whole gen AI industry will have to pay… something. Punitive damages would make the industry cease to exist overnight, and I’d bet most publishers would prefer a check instead.