On: Anthropic cut up millions of used books, and downloaded 7M pirated ones – judge

[zoklet-enjoyer]

Did they really steal if they didn't deprive anyone of their copy? I don't think copying is theft.

[hadlock → zoklet-enjoyer]

It's copyright infringement, which is not theft, they're legally distinct in the eyes of the law. This is partly why the "you wouldn't download a car" copyright ads were so widely mocked.

[__MatrixMan__ → hadlock]

Fun fact, they didn't have the rights to use the font they used for those commercials: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43775926

[gghffguhvc → __MatrixMan__]

Or the music. It was originally made as a one off for a film festival. Movie industry defended the lawsuit over the music.

[axus → zoklet-enjoyer]

Agreed, the judge should avoid slang or even commonly accepted synonyms in an official ruling. The charge is not for theft.

Substitute infringement for theft.

[fortran77 → zoklet-enjoyer]

It's fine that you think that way. But this is a discusion of the laws of the United States of America and ruling by American courts, not a discussion of your own legal theories.

[hnlmorg → fortran77]

The GP isn’t talking about some edge case legal dilemma that requires a lawyer or judge to comment. It’s already widely documented that copyright infringement is legally distinct from theft.

[badlibrarian → zoklet-enjoyer]

"Tell it to the Judge..."

[kjkjadksj → zoklet-enjoyer]

You may not think it is but the law does.

[buildbot → kjkjadksj]

The law says it’s copyright infringement, not theft.