“We’re sorry, but our business model precludes timely responses in times of system stress.
As a reminder, our shareholders are our primary concern (by law) and staffing trained humans to handle in customer support during unexpected surges isn’t something that can be supported while also funding the €0.05 per share quarterly dividend paid to British Airways share holders on June 29th of this year.
We are not in a rush. If you’d like, try another airline. But they’re all the same.
This is true for so much of the human/corporation interface. I think it is so frustrating because it forces us to confront some major cognitive dissonance: we increasingly live in a world that isn't designed for us. It's designed by the corporations, acting under much different pressures.
Sure, you can say humans made these decisions. But at scale, that seems like saying our cells choose what we do.
> “We’re sorry, but our business model precludes timely responses in times of system stress."
It doesn't have to be that way. Here's Haley Dragoo, former head of the New York Subway's "Twitter Division".[1] She had the sense to insist on a desk in the Rail Control Center,
so she could know what was really going on. Down on the working floor, too, not up in the gallery overlooking the control room.
She was a few meters from the people directly running the subway.
Her point was that the MTA was "good at monologues" but didn't interact well. So she posted on the MTA's Twitter account, several hundred times a day. If someone asked a serious question, she'd answer quickly, with actual info. Not sugar-coating the info, just translating from "subway speak". (The operations people talk about location in terms of distance from a reference point at the start of the line, the signal number plate on each signal, but customers think in terms of stations.)
It's very New York to do that.
The MTA has dropped Twitter/X, though. Twitter/X wanted to bill them for using the Twitter/X API, and the MTA will not pay others to distribute their info. So now the MTA uses their own web site and app.
“$3000 per book is entirely on-par with the per-infringement penalties when an individual does it, too.”
Three things to note.
1. As you said, copyright infringement is generally treated for each instance. This one-time payment would include a single use. Each training would be a separate infringement. And it could be argued that each use by a user of the model could be considered a separate infringement.
2. Generally copyright fines are increased if the persons doing the infringing action know what they are doing. Aka, ‘willful infringement.’ It’s hard to imagine companies like OpenAI were unaware of the possibility of their actions being considered infringement.
3. Often restitution of infringement includes money made by the infringer. So not simply, “your book is worth $3000.” But rather? “Your book is worth $3000 AND this company has derived an additional $50,000 of revenue from it.”
False. Training was found to be a legitimate use. The liability was specifically, solely, for copyright infringement specifically due to getting the works in the first place, not training on those works.
> And it could be argued that each use by a user of the model could be considered a separate infringement.
No, it could not.
If this standard was applied to copyright infringement on BitTorrent, someone who helped share one file to 100 other users would get hit with 100 copyright infringement instances, not one.
> Generally copyright fines are increased if the persons doing the infringing action know what they are doing. Aka, ‘willful infringement.’ It’s hard to imagine companies like OpenAI were unaware of the possibility of their actions being considered infringement.
That's already accounted for when I said this was in the normal range for liability per copyright violation.
> Often restitution of infringement includes money made by the infringer. So not simply, “your book is worth $3000.” But rather? “Your book is worth $3000 AND this company has derived an additional $50,000 of revenue from it.”
Depends on the details; however, as previously noted, the judge *explicitly noted* that training was not itself an offence, only the piracy to get the training data was. Any revenue derived from the offence had to be shown to be in the period between the offence and when they bought the same works, because they were found to be allowed to use those works in this manner.
If doing the bad thing is just a fine for one person and a life altering consequence for someone else, it is not a fair and equally distributed form of justice and is a gameable function needing to be fixed.
The caps don't help, and I don't care, unfortunately.
I don't even know what point you're trying to make. That it's fine they paid a billion dollars? So if they do it again, it's another billion? Oh well, guess I'm just not allowed to pirate things until I'm super wealthy. Or is it maybe the justice is being played out like it's supposed to? Oh, well, guess I better hope the system of governance that's being actively manipulated by the people that are breaking the same rules I am bound to suddenly and miraculously changes.
Like, I don't even detect a mote of "what they did is not ok."
Maybe you do think that and it's closer to you just trying to be careful about the letter of the law and you would also see to the justice system being fixed. I'd like that.
But you spending any time in your life to make this argument at all in their case is just goofy.
> If doing the bad thing is just a fine for one person and a life altering consequence for someone else, it is not a fair and equally distributed form of justice and is a gameable function needing to be fixed.
On that we agree.
> So if they do it again, it's another billion?
Judges don't like repeat offenders; the settlement was separate to the court case, but if it came to a court case, a judge would likely pick a bigger number. Especially as they earn a lot more now.
> Oh, well, guess I better hope the system of governance that's being actively manipulated by the people that are breaking the same rules I am bound to suddenly and miraculously changes.
While a generally useful concern, not particularly pertinent to a negotiated settlement.
> Like, I don't even detect a mote of "what they did is not ok."
One point five billion dollars is a strange idea for a lack of mote.
I mean, brother, if that's the mote in your eye, I'd hate to find out what the beam is.
> Maybe you do think that and it's closer to you just trying to be careful about the letter of the law and you would also see to the justice system being fixed. I'd like that.
The closer I look at it, the more I think the entirety of what we call "civilisation", legal system included, is a terrifyingly bodged together nightmare of duct tape and gremlins, codified in weird rituals and a smattering of latin and robes, where we only just about manage to not burn everything down by the collective will of enough people in the system wanting to be around for the next paycheque.
However, untangling a few millennia of spaghetti code written without the benefit of any automated checks, is beyond even governments who actively campaign on that as a platform, so what good would it do me or you to whinge about one specific case where it seemed to have actually gone approximately correctly for once?
> But you spending any time in your life to make this argument at all in their case is just goofy.
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.
> $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.
"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.
While you are entirely correct that immediate withdrawal of benzos is life-threatening, the same is true for short-acting SSRIs/SNRIs.
For eg, when admitted to a psych ward, there are a handful of things that the hospital will continue giving to a patient and gradually taper. Benzos, SSRIs/SNRIs, anti-psychotics, anti-convulsants & alcohol.
I mention this just to urge folks not to go cold-turkey on SSRIs/SNRIs as it can be life-threatening.
For example, the 1st Amendment does not attempt to lay out some non-exclusive examples of why the rights in the 1st Amendment are included. So why did the Founders include this in the Amendment wording?
I think ignoring phrases in the US Constitution to fit a narrative without any consideration isn't a recipe for good governance. But I'm happy to be proven wrong.
> I think ignoring phrases in the US Constitution to fit a narrative without any consideration isn't a recipe for good governance
Like those who ignore "the right of the people"? Or is it OK to ignore that phrase? Seems like a pretty critical part to ignore.
I'm not one to ignore the significance of the "well-regulated militia" part, it's also a good point to understand the meaning of what this meant. It seems the whole point of people being armed was to ensure there was an armed populace able to rally as a useful and well-equipped (as a more historical reading of "well-regulated" would say) militia. The militia not being a standing army by a central government, but the ability for the people to come together effectively.
One could make an argument it's no longer relevant compared to modern technology. After all, what's an AR-15 going to do compared to a predator drone, a tomahawk missile, an Abrams tank, etc. But in this age where cheap drones are making multi-billion dollar warships worthless and things like cryptography and AI being considered a munition it seems more relevant than ever.
"I don't think one could argue the militia could be under state control"
I'm not certain this is true at all. To suggest that the Founders meant for state militias to simply be their own forces with no control by the federal government is in direct conflict with the Articles of the US Constitution.
The US Constitution clearly outlines the powers of Congress to call forth & organize the militia. The US Constitution also clearly identifies the President as Command in Chief of the militia. That was further codified in a handful of acts in the 1790s, upheld by the Supreme Court in the early 1800s. The US Constitution also makes mention of the militia in the 5th Amendment.
Early writing at that time suggests that the reason some of the Founders supported state militias was because they were very reluctant to allow the US to maintain a standing army. The US Industry Military Complex was never intended by the Founders.
Today we identify the militia described in the US Constitution as the US Army Reserves. However that came about only after the passage of the Dick Act of 1903 (yes, that's actually the name) because President (Teddy) Roosevelt was upset at the state of the militias during the Spanish American War of 1898. And the Dick Act actually split the idea of a militia into 'organized' and 'unorganized'.
Interesting comment. I am researching this in more depth as a result. Thank you.
Two nits, or slight overstatements:
> The US Constitution also clearly identifies the President as Command in Chief of the militia
Is not quite true. He is the commander of the army and navy. For the militia, the exact text is:
"of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"
The second part is important. The militias are normally independent of the president. However, they can be called into service of the president.
> the powers of Congress to call forth & organize the militia
This is power shared with the states, in a relatively complex and ill-defined way:
"reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
But yes, the goal was largely to prevent something akin to the military-industrial complex.
My general read was to vest power federally, when being used in accordance with rule-of-law, but to put in power structures where the members and officers of the militia would ultimately be loyal to the people / the states. E.g. make rebellion easy if used beyond the scope of the Constitution.
In case this isn't a bot and simply someone unfamiliar with the internet search, here is a snippet from the Google AI results when searching for the phrase, "list of US court cases where police lost qualified immunity."
--------
A federal court denies qualified immunity when an officer’s conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right or when material facts remain heavily disputed for a jury. While appellate and district courts routinely evaluate these claims, absolute lists contain thousands of entries because denials typically happen at the lower or circuit court levels rather than as sweeping national precedent.[0]
Notable Federal and Supreme Court Cases Denying Immunity
Taylor v. Riojas (2020): The U.S. Supreme Court summarily reversed a lower court and denied qualified immunity to correctional officers who housed an inmate in shockingly filthy, human-waste-packed cells for days, ruling that the extreme conditions-violating the Eighth Amendment-needed no prior identical precedent.[1]
King v. Brownback (Sixth Circuit): The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied qualified immunity to members of a joint law enforcement task force after they aggressively tackled and beat an innocent man (James King) outside a convenience store when they mistook him for a suspect.[2]
Schroeder v. City of Des Moines (2022): The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that three police officers were not entitled to qualified immunity after conducting an unlawful, suspicionless car stop and subsequent arrest based on an unverified temporary license plate.[3]
Glover v. City of Jackson (2024): A federal district court famously rejected a detective’s qualified immunity defense in a major civil rights action involving fabricated evidence and malicious prosecution, highlighting systemic flaws in the doctrine itself.[4]
Did you read your [2] citation? While the 6th court denied immunity, they tried to claim a different immunity. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the SC said you settle it without immunity first, the 6th court did not take that advice. Sounds like they used a different law.
I am not familiar with the case, but from my reading IJ is still trying to fight the immunity.
> Instead, the high court asked the Sixth Circuit to decide the issue first. Rather than seriously engaging with the issue, as the Supreme Court asked, the Sixth Circuit unthinkingly applied outdated caselaw, becoming the sixth federal appeals court to do so. Now, IJ is asking the Supreme Court to weigh in and deny the government one of its many tools to avoid the Constitution
Another rule of good conversation/social skills I was taught: Only give someone a criticism if it's something that they themselves can fix within 30 seconds.
For example, let someone know that there's something in their teeth, their bag is partially unzipped, or they're too close to a 'wet paint' sign. But DON'T tell someone that they have a hole in their sweater, their hair is really messed up, they are wrong about some choice they made from a personal story that they just finished.
Of course there is additional nuance like nothing graphic/sexual. And it's ok to offer to help the person fix the thing, but don't simply do it yourself without first getting consent. Context is key but the rule of 30seconds is a good one.
As a reminder, our shareholders are our primary concern (by law) and staffing trained humans to handle in customer support during unexpected surges isn’t something that can be supported while also funding the €0.05 per share quarterly dividend paid to British Airways share holders on June 29th of this year.
We are not in a rush. If you’d like, try another airline. But they’re all the same.
Beep.”
reply