<sarcasm>
I thought that Anthropic and OpenAI created precedents that legitimize libgen and Anna archive. They pillaged all the books and scientific papers from those archives and got away with it. Why not the rest of us?
</sarcasm>
Be careful not to confuse using the material and distributing it. There are open legal cases sorting out what fair use means for generative AI. Distribution (seeding in the case of torrents) of this material isn't legal. It got Meta in trouble, and it's getting Anna's archive in trouble.
People always say this like the tech industry wasn't culturally anti-copyright and pro-creative commons before. Those same people probably work at Meta and Anthropic, just like Google's book project which got them in trouble.
> People always say this like the tech industry wasn't culturally anti-copyright and pro-creative commons before.
I completely agree with that. The problem is that the current system is such that only billion dollar players can flout the rules, while everyone else is left in the dust.
Others already mentioned they lost their lawsuit. Should the fines have killed Anthropic? Would have been more fair and a less bad world?
Why not focus energy on being anti-aggressive copyright in general. These system won't ever be fair. It's just rent seeking enabled by the government and some people can afford the rent.
You’re talking past me for no real reason, mate. That’s precisely the point I’m making.
Young Carlos thinks it matters that Anthropic got sued when they can keep flouting the rules anyway, and I disagree: it’s not a fair system until we ditch the rent-seeking entirely.
They paid one of the largest settlements in world history. Should I guess that hackers are only satisfied with the public execution of the company leadership?
To pick a nit: Technically Anthropic didn't loose any lawsuit or pay any fine. They came to an agreement with the authors to pay them a $1,5 billion settlement.
Which was a lot of money per book.
Wasn't the Google project scanning physical books and not distributing them externally? That seems like a very different thing than torrenting or even downloading stuff uploaded by a third party.
Why the negativity? You can also as an individual do the same as Anthropic and get sued for billions. You have that option, don't let anybody hold you back!
Fair point, but I think the Pinkertons would be at my door within the hour if I started re-appropriating the art style of Studio Ghibli or Disney for commercial profit.
The biggest red flag for me is the author hiding their name. If you wrote quality book about a programming language you are not hiding your identity from the world.
The repository also has a misconfigured .gitignore file which allowed them to check in some built executables into the repository.
This is something that I wouldn't judge beginners for, but someone claiming to be an expert writing a book on the topic should know how to configure a .gitignore for their particular language of expertise.
One of the best movies about history of Apple and people involved is "Pirates Of Silicon Valley". Pretty accurate portrayal of Steve Jobs, Woz and the rest.
> There is only one or two lines of dialogue in the entire film.
Technically speaking with only one actor in the entire film there can be no dialog. These were couple of expletives. I love the movie -- it is so different.
They returned in the first few months of the Trump administration when Elon was an important man in the government with direct access to POTUS. But after Musk fell from the Trump's good graces the same advertisers quickly took their marbles and quietly left twitter.
I was seeing Disney and Apple ads on X pretty quickly after Elon bought it. I don't think advertisers care as much as you think, if you're a major company you can't easily skip a major advertising platform without it impacting your bottom line
reply