And if the accused company is outside of the US, well, US courts have no jurisdiction so apparently the US government can just claim they are guilty and impose the sanctions...
Other countries have a say about it.
The AI training part of the court case was deemed fair use.
What about books and art where the author/artist does not authorise AI to train on it? They do happily train on it, ignoring their "ToS".
This is just double standards, a slap on the wrist to not worsen the situation with authors imo.
You could also say the Chinese companies are doing the same - they _do_ pay for their Anthropic subscriptions after all.
No, it was asked to pay book authors because it pirated copies of books and stored them on their hard drives. The ruling had nothing to do with training.
If training wasn't considered outside the law, this goes on to make the point about double standards for US vs Chinese model training methods.
I think the Aaron Schwartz case is incredibly vexing because he was obviously acting out of a sense of altruism without personal self-interest. I don't think he deserved the book getting thrown at him like that. But the whole copyright system, which people seem to think is simultaneously good and bad, kinda rests on not allowing those kinds of violations
They just should have bought them, rather than pirating them.
Also LLM output is not IP (in itself) in the first place, nor would Anthropic want to claim it is and that they have rights to it - that would drive paying customers away.
The issue comes down to at most ToS violations.
Bought, scanned and destroyed them I believe. The judge okay'd Destructive Scanning.
https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2025/07/bartz-...
You need to destroy the _physical copy_ that you scanned.