> That was just one settlement but precedent is clear.
The precedent is clear. Look at it this way.
Of the two largest known IP scrapers, one was taken to court, but settled before a ruling by paying each author a one-time fee of $215 to use their works in perpetuity, with no option for the author to opt-out.
The precedent is not "you cannot do this", it's "you have a 50% chance of being made to pay, the payment is a pittance for the duration intended."
> Also if you distill from Anthropic and OpenAI, expect to be in court. Whether you think distillation is fair game or not, the US court system is not cheap. But it turns out that Z.ai, Minimax, Moonshot, Xiaomi, Deepseek, Alibaba etc don’t need to worry about that.
Well, yes. That's because when Ant and OAI distilled the worlds knowledge into their model, they didn't appear to be too worried about distilling all accessible works.
That's why I call it a level playing field when competing with open models - anyone can distill them if they want to and compete on service and product.
IOW, you don't compete based on who swallowed more of the world's knowledge.
My point is that $215 per author might not be a lot for a company that thinks it’s worth $2T but it is a lot for normal American startups. So it really isn’t a level playing field.
> My point is that $215 per author might not be a lot for a company that thinks it’s worth $2T but it is a lot for normal American startups. So it really isn’t a level playing field.
I get your point, but I think it's irrelevant to the question of "level playing field".
Startups don't need to distill the worlds knowledge, they just need to distill the models.
With open-weight models, this results in everyone having the same ability to supply distilled knowledge.
Without open-weight models, it's not a level playing field because those who got there first and spoiled the pitch already have the knowledge distilled.
The precedent is clear. Look at it this way.
Of the two largest known IP scrapers, one was taken to court, but settled before a ruling by paying each author a one-time fee of $215 to use their works in perpetuity, with no option for the author to opt-out.
The precedent is not "you cannot do this", it's "you have a 50% chance of being made to pay, the payment is a pittance for the duration intended."
> Also if you distill from Anthropic and OpenAI, expect to be in court. Whether you think distillation is fair game or not, the US court system is not cheap. But it turns out that Z.ai, Minimax, Moonshot, Xiaomi, Deepseek, Alibaba etc don’t need to worry about that.
Well, yes. That's because when Ant and OAI distilled the worlds knowledge into their model, they didn't appear to be too worried about distilling all accessible works.
That's why I call it a level playing field when competing with open models - anyone can distill them if they want to and compete on service and product.
IOW, you don't compete based on who swallowed more of the world's knowledge.