https://techcrunch.com/2026/07...

"The payout will deliver $3,000 per work across an estimated 500,000 works, shared among the authors and publishers who hold rights to them. While the settlement is believed to be the largest in the history of U.S. copyright law, many authors and creators still donâ(TM)t view it as a win.

Thatâ(TM)s because of how the legal question was resolved. Alsup sided with Anthropic on the core issue. He ruled that training an AI model on copyrighted text counts as fair use â" a decision widely seen as a turning point for the AI industry. But the ruling didnâ(TM)t excuse how Anthropic obtained the books in the first place. Anthropic had built its training library from two sources: books it purchased and scanned (fine), and books it downloaded from pirate sites like Library Genesis and Pirate Library Mirror. Alsup found the second method illegal on its own terms and said that piracy question could go to trial; Anthropic agreed to a settlement soon after to avoid a trial and whatever damages a jury might have awarded."

So... it's legal to scan books you own and then use them to train LLMs, but it's not legal to use scans that someone else made (I'll assume in this case, they didn't own the books in question.) Hence... the perverse incentive to buy and re-scan books that might already have been scanned... and the cheapest way of doing it is to chop the spine off.

"Internal Anthropic documents about its plan to scan millions of books, revealed in the copyright lawsuit, donâ(TM)t make clear why the company wanted to destroy the books in the process. A deposition of Tom Harvey, who Anthropic hired to lead the project and who previously helped create Google Books, shows that one company Anthropic contracted to scan the books was Datamation, which offers both âoehigh volume destructive and non-destructive book scanningâ services. In a destructive book scanning process, the spine of the book is cut so the pages can be fed into a scanning machine, which is faster and cheaper than non-destructive book scanning.

Regardless of its original intentions, the federal judge in the copyright lawsuit from authors against Anthropic, William Alsup, found that Anthropicâ(TM)s creation of digital copies of the books was legal specifically because the books were destroyed.

âoeHere, every purchased print copy was copied in order to save storage space and to enable searchability as a digital copy,â Alsup wrote in his ruling. âoeThe print original was destroyed. One replaced the other. And, there is no evidence that the new, digital copy was shown, shared, or sold outside the company.â "

Kind of fucked up that the scan can't be shared (or donated). I imagine in most cases, good copies of these books no longer exist in libraries or in the Library of Congress. With current law, all books that are covered under copyright will eventually fall into the public domain, but this is meaningless unless copies exist for people to redistribute once that limit is reached. Essentially companies are exploiting the monopoly benefit extended through copyright without allowing society to benefit from the material falling into the public domain, which is the implicit contract to using state power to enforce copyright.

Ironically, destroying physical copies in order to comply with the 1:1 rule makes the remaining copies that much more valuable.

My experience thus far with the various LLM chatbots is that they've all been trained with the default idea that users want to one-shot solutions.

A human in a similar situation normally would ask questions to clarify the problem, and attempt to ascertain the level of domain knowledge so that they can intelligently communicate.

Part of the song and dance in forming a prompt is to pre-load the model with all those items, so that you don't burn an obscene amount of tokens for it to finally get to the point where it can be useful. An open ended query can be useful for discovery but only if you're willing to do the legwork to cross-reference against other models and reference material.

To put it another way... most humans are lazy and just want to put in the minimum of work, and are willing to accept a 60% acceptable answer from a bot (basically using it as a search engine replacement). Add the fact that most humans are not domain experts, nor are they able or willing to educate themselves to a minimum standard, they have no way of judging whether the bot answer is even at the 60% standard - instead they do what most people do... if it sounds good, and the bot claims to be an "expert", then they go with that.

I anticipate that models specifically curated for specific domains will become more and more useful. I've seen models plugged into residential and commercial electrical code, for example, to act as an always available code compliance helper for a specific municipality. And, as you point out, as long as you can look up the relevant section of code to verify that the LLM supplied advice is correct, and do the load calculations to make sure the math is correct, you can validate the LLM's answer.

The demand is real... whether they can scale the workload down to actually make money remains to be seen.

Long term there are major benefits to society if they can drive down the cost of energy, cooling, and computational infrastructure to support democratized access to LLMs and diffusion models without bankrupting providers.

In the meantime, I would just settle for a decent search engine that didn't require me to go to page 3 of search results (and forcing me to verify that I'm a human for daring to click to page 2 of the search) to find a relevant link that wasn't SEO spam. You'd think that a university agricultural reference for the public would be in the top rankings when searching for a specific variety of vegetable, but apparently today, that's no longer the case.

Given that many companies do a terrible job of maintaining and refreshing their code base... and that even their production code bases are in perpetual beta... and even before AI they were doing things like discarding their legacy codebase and attempting to rewrite things from scratch (remember Sonos?)... an argument can be made that if you're going to churn out a shitty replacement, but can do it faster, that will still save you money.

https://arstechnica.com/gadget...

"In May, Sonos updated its mobile appâ"to the dismay of many users. With missing features and bugs, customers complained about a loss of functionality and hardware not working the way it should. As Sonos deals with the expensive repercussions, a report from Bloomberg today highlights how Sonos allowed the release of an update so buggy and incomplete as to overturn its goodwill with long-standing customers.

Illustrating how poorly this app update has gone, last month, Sonos CEO Patrick Spence said the company would spend $20 million to $30 million in the short term to get the app where it needs to be (which is, basically, functioning as well as the predecessor) and rebuild customer and partner trust. Sonos also expects to miss its annual revenue target by $200 million. This is partially due to its delay of two hardware releases to focus on the app. Bloomberg noted that âoeSonos shares are down 25% this year.â Annual bonuses and merit-based raises have also reportedly been canceled."

I have no idea how much money Sonos spent before committing to spending an additional 30M, but taking a 200M revenue hit because they couldn't get enough feature parity before shutting off the old servers and disabling the old app seems like a pretty big stick.

"One reason for the appâ(TM)s failure is the outdated code and infrastructure that the prior app was running on. Anonymous employees Bloomberg spoke with claimed that the Sonos appâ(TM)s technical debt had been building up for 20 years before the update.

By the time Sonos decided to update the app in mid-2022, it was dealing with software based on virtually obsolete infrastructure and code languages. As such, the app update âoewas less about introducing new functionality than sorting out the existing mess,â Bloomberg reported.

After decades of the appâ(TM)s inner workings growing stale, the impending release of Sonosâ(TM) long anticipated Ace wireless headphones, which came out in June, made the need for a new app both urgent and necessary. This is because the headphones were made to be on-the-go, differing from Sonosâ(TM) other products, mainly speakers and soundbars relying on home Wi-Fi. This seems to align with comments that Spence made to investors in August. He said that the app update was âoea redesign of the entire systemâ"not only the app but also the player side of our system, as well as our cloud infrastructureâ"and this was a complex undertaking.â"

This sounds like they didn't want to support parallel systems and were hoping that they could migrate everything over before the cutover... and when they failed to make that deadline, they decided (and by they, I mean management, because who else in their right minds would disable functionality to happy customers) to just deep-six the legacy environment without warning instead of transitioning people to a "legacy retention program" with a definite cut-off date in the future.

I guess the moral of the story is, if you have shitty management, having them make fucked up decisions that result in near-immediate feedback is better than having them percolate for a year and then result in no-bonuses / layoffs.

Free speech includes lying.

Anytime I've rented or borrowed something, from an actual place, they have placed a defined return date on it.

"We'll revoke access when we feel like it" doesn't sound like a proper rental. How do I know I'll even be able to finish watching the movie once before it is revoked?

The courts generally require contracts to have "mutual interest" or whatever the term is. Basically, both parties have to get something out of the deal. I pay the money, I get access to the movie.

If the rental period is indefinite, then the only reason to stop offering it should be technical or logistical - IE something actually broke in the company's systems. We were stupid, consolidated on this one cloud system that turned out to be based in one room in some guy's basement, there are no backups, and there was a fire.

Not a company decision to not renew a licensing agreement.

I agree.

Probably not as good for Sony, like I said, the money they saved on the contracts was probably minimal to nothing, now they're eating a whole lot of bad press over it. For those who have lost the titles and care, how likely are they to buy from Sony again?

This might not work out the way you think. Generally speaking, with torrenting, you are not prosecuted for downloading the media. The prosecution is for UPLOADING the media, at least fragments of it, to others.

You'd need to set yourself up as an absolute leech - 0% upload. Might take a while to get the media file in that case. In which case one is unlikely to get the threatening letter in the first place.

Yes, the court system is nitpicky enough for that to matter.

At least to be like Steam - it is understood that people who buy things get said license in perpetuity.
IE they might buy a 10 year license for SELLING said titles, but they still get to provide said titles to those that purchased them after the license expired.
It sounds like Sony, for what was probably a trivial savings, wrote bad contracts. Or their system can't handle not having something for sale yet still downloadable by those who have previously purchased it.

Yes, but once one is ripping, the important part is the digital copy without DRM under your control, not the DVD itself.

Even the physical copy in hand doesn't guarantee continued possession. Besides just needing to protect the disc from things like fire, physical abuse, and more, an awful lot of DVDs only last a decade or two.

I'm sure they have some definition for it somewhere in the legislation, probably an appendix or glossary.
"Designed to be worn on the body during operation or use, such as watches, hearing aids/headphones, body monitors, glasses, etc..."

Two decades old would probably mean you're considering NiMH rechargeable vs Alkaline primary - 1.2V vs 1.5. On the other hand, NiMH cells have much lower internal resistance, which makes it such that NiMH cells can actually provide more power, as the 1.5V of Alkaline gets pulled down to 1.2V or less much faster, as load increases.
Today, it'd be LiIon more often, though lithium primary cells exist as well, and both tend to be ~3V and low internal resistance. Yes, the primary cell, along with chemistries like zinc-air, are very long lived, but as it is easy to make the battery last all day and then just recharge at night, not actually that big of a deal.

You don't own it.

You can extend this to hardware as well. If you're not allowed to repair or modify something... you don't own it.

1. Sony should be forced to refund the original purchases, no matter how old they are. If the consumer was only "borrowing" the media, then Sony was only "borrowing" the money.
2. Yo-ho-ho and a bottle of Rum. IE Piracy.