They already did and paid 1.5B https://authorsguild.org/advocacy/artificial-intelligence/wh...
replyThat's only a fraction of the training data.
replyQuite amusing that the library of libgen is worth 1.5bil for unlimited access.
replyIt's about the same valuation as bun, lol.
$3,000 per title.
replyDo you think many authors would give you rights to create derivative works en masse for that money?
replyFor endlessly reselling the whole work verbatim? Well, where can I buy such a license in the real world, because then I would like to buy a couple of those!
replyMeta/Facebook got away with it though right?
replyThat's a great cost-benefit ratio. Can you and I steal and do illegal things and pay the same cost?
replySure, but only if you get the same benefits
replylooks like we can't today. Man it would be great to figure out how to be above the law just like how these other rich people in different social classes are.
replyBeing logically consistent isn’t as profitable as being aggressive and loud.
replyAnd if it includes at least one GPL source, they should release the weights on GPL license.
replyWhile I love the sentiment, I feel like the odds of this actually ever reaching a trial are low, given the international positioning of the parties, and the... um... complex relationships involved.
replyAnthropic's actions seem performative. Others have already speculated on the likely audience(s).
> While I love the sentiment, I feel like the odds of this actually ever reaching a trial are low ...
replyAs cited in a peer comment here[0]:
In June 2025, Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California ruled on
summary judgment that using books without permission to
train AI was fair use if they were acquired legally, but he
denied Anthropic’s request for summary judgment related to
piracy—finding that the piracy was not fair use.[1]
0 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48667411
1 - https://authorsguild.org/advocacy/artificial-intelligence/wh...