Comment by tikimcfee

19 hours ago

Exactly, and that mentality is hitting the first responders point again harder. I'll say it again.

$3000 because I stole a book and did something bad ruins my life, and could put me in a room where my personal freedoms are infringed. It is designed to disincentivize me from doing the bad thing.

What you (first responder) are defending is that if you just steal enough of them all at once, and then make enough money from it, you are able to pay the fee and not have your freedoms taken away to do it again, and profit again. This means objectively, there is no disincentive, so that "rule" does completely different things for completely different contexts, and the point is muddied by pretending that "well I paid the fee!" Is the point.

The point is to tell the thing doing the bad thing not to do the bad thing.

This is why I get so frustrated. People are so flipping blinding by dollars and whatabouts that it's just.. like I said, I have to believe for many people it's an inherent unacknowledged miss on what the point of a justice system and a law is, or it's a veiled defense for themselves knowing that, maybe, they would do the same if they could. I have met those people, and I do not want them in positions of power, or leadership.

3 comments

tikimcfee

Reply
ben_w  18 hours ago

> $3000 because I stole a book and did something bad ruins my life, and could put me in a room where my personal freedoms are infringed. It is designed to disincentivize me from doing the bad thing.

Repeat after me: One point five billion is more than three thousand.

> you are able to pay the fee and not have your freedoms taken away to do it again

You too are able to pay as many fees as you want. Three thousand varies from life-changing to a slap on the wrist, even for non-unicorn-corps.

That this is a bad thing, that personal judgements should scale with personal means rather than be statutory, is a broad problem with the politics of lawmakers and the legal system: it also applies to speeding and littering.

> The point is to tell the thing doing the bad thing not to do the bad thing.

Then you will be pleased to read what the judge wrote:

  This order grants summary judgment for Anthropic that the training use was a fair use. And, it grants that the print-to-digital format change was a fair use for a different reason. But it denies summary judgment for Anthropic that the pirated library copies must be treated as training copies.

  We will have a trial on the pirated copies used to create Anthropic’s central library and the resulting damages, actual or statutory (including for willfulness). That Anthropic later bought a copy of a book it earlier stole off the internet will not absolve it of liability for the theft but it may affect the extent of statutory damages. Nothing is foreclosed as to any other copies flowing from library copies for uses other than for training LLMs.

Specifically in that last paragraph:

  Anthropic later bought a copy of a book it earlier stole off the internet will not absolve it

Because guess what Anthropic decided, internally, all by itself? That's right, to not break the law.

  • tikimcfee  18 hours ago

    Internet friend human thing..

    I mean come on.

    "They decided to not break the law by breaking the law and then getting worried so they tried to unbreak it."

    ... seriously?

    "I decided to speed but realized that was bad and I didn't get caught yet so I slowed down. Oh look a cop, guess I dodged a bullet! I guess I can speed buy just be careful."

    "I decided to steal a cookie but I was worried so I baked a new cookie and put it back. That means stealing is ok if I eventually put it back! Why even bother with asking for permission in the first place?"

    I do not think you are willfully missing this, and I'm glad you also saw the note about "the extent of statutory damages".

    Like, you probably like Star Trek TNG. Remember the episode, alien kills all the Uthnocks to cherish a woman in self penance, Picard looks at the alien and says, "we have no law for your crime"?

    The point was to paint an exaggerated picture of what happens when to disproportionately empowered groups meet a moral system where one is clearly in the wrong but cannot be held accountable because the system of justice just hasn't written down enough words to explain that - indeed - one should not kill all the Uthnocks.

    I'm angry at your argument and I'm angry at the way it is often repeated, and I do not want to make personal attacks and I apologize that my language points that way.

    You are also pointing language at me that is telling me that I cannot trust your system of justice that you envision because, somewhere, there is difference in how and I see what justice is supposed to do when at different scales, and I do not know of a human way to resolve it but discuss is with the fervor that it deserves.

    Edit: I won't delve deeper into this discussion because neither you nor I can change it right now. I hope you reading what I wrote changes some way you see this, and I hope that I can see something in what you're saying. This is a forum for discussing technology, business of it, and its effect locally and globally and not getting mad at each other. I did not frame my anger toward the argument and framed it at the people making the argument, and that was my mistake.

    • ben_w  18 hours ago

      > "They decided to not break the law by breaking the law and then getting worried so they tried to unbreak it."

      I did not say that. Try harder. I don't care to read the rest when you open with such an incorrect reading of my words.