Welp

If copyright isnt protecting, piracy isnt infringing on it.

I think this is an article about this order for summary judgement in Bartz v Anthropic

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69058235/231/bartz-v-anthropic-pbc/

The articles is really stretching it’s sources. If you read the order, the judge mentions Anthropic has pirated lots of books just to keep in a library, and thus he grants summary judgement for all of those, which means Anthropic will have to pay damages on all of those.

He does say that the ones they only trained on and that were not pirated are excluded, but that’s because this is summary judgement, so the facts are all assumed in the light most favourable to the defendant. That will be finally addressed in a verdict if this comes to trial.

So basically the judge said pirating shit is so egregious, there’s no way they can levy fair use for that. Which I think is the right decision.

The article and the court document really paint two very different pictures, which does not speak to the journalistic integrity.