• Prox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    308
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 days ago

    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.

    • artifex@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      124
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      60
      ·
      edit-2
      5 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      5 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.

    • Womble@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days 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.

    • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 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.

    • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 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.