Sr. Content Developer at Microsoft, working remotely in PA, TechBash conference organizer, former Microsoft MVP, Husband, Dad and Geek.
154285 stories
·
33 followers

Has the Anthropic Settlement Changed Everything?

1 Share
Header image: Black ISBN bar code on a white background (credit: Janaka Dharmasena / Shutterstock.com)

Recent developments in the world of copyright have been making many writers rethink their attitudes toward copyright registration and reversion of publishing rights.

Because many artificial intelligence companies used pirated books to train their large language models, there are now a growing number of copyright infringement class action lawsuits against them. While it is still undetermined whether these companies’ use of the copyrighted material was fair use or not, it has become clear that the use of copyrighted material from pirate libraries is a no-no, especially when the method involves torrenting, which means the companies participated in redistributing the materials.

The first of these lawsuits, Anthropic v. Bartz, just held the final Fairness Hearing on a class action settlement and, although there were some minor factors which delayed Judge Martinez-Olguin’s approval, it looks as if the class action settlement will be approved and 1.5 billion dollars will eventually be paid out to claimants who met the definition of the class.

Needless to say, this will be an unprecedented class action settlement involving copyright. As currently calculated, claimants for each copyrighted work that was pirated by Anthropic will share $3,100. If the work was self-published or the work’s rights had reverted to the author, they will receive the entire amount. It’s safe to say this is the first time the average writer will benefit from their copyright registration in any substantial way.

But not every writer benefited, for a number of reasons; the primary reason was that the book had to have had its copyright registered with the US Copyright Office. The definition of the class for the Anthropic class action was:

  • have been downloaded by Anthropic from LibGen or PiLiMi;
  • have an International Standard Book Number (ISBN) or Amazon Standard Identification Number (ASIN);
  • have been registered with the United States Copyright Office within five years of the work’s first publication; and
  • have been registered before being downloaded by Anthropic, or within three months of the work’s first publication.

Of the estimated seven million works that were pirated by Anthropic, less than 500,000 works were part of the class. As of the May 14 settlement hearing, the number of works claimed was 447,576. That’s about 7% of the pirated works.

The requirement that a work have an ISBN or ASIN is essentially unfair because it only recognizes individual books, but at least it doesn’t discriminate against self-published works. There is nothing in US Copyright Law that distinguishes between “books” and other literary works that may have a registered copyright. The requirement is only to make identifying works and verifying author and publisher easier for the settlement administrators. As I say, though, most books do have one or the other, even if the ASIN is connected to long out of print book being sold used. Presumably some book authors have managed to avoid Amazon entirely, but they must be a small number.

Another similar class action lawsuit, Elsevier Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. was filed on May 5 by a bunch of publishers and Scott Turow as the only named author. It restricts the class even further. The proposed class definition is:

All legal or beneficial owners of registered copyrights, in whole or in part, for any book possessing an International Standard Book Number (ISBN) or journal article possessing a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) or International Standard Serial Number (ISSN), that Meta, without such owner’s authorization, (1) reproduced by downloading during torrenting and/or copying of web scrapes; or (2) distributed during torrenting; or (3) reproduced in connection with the development and/or training of a Llama Model. For purposes of this definition, copyrighted works are limited to those registered with the United States Copyright Office (a) within five years of the work’s publication and before being reproduced or distributed by Meta, or (b) within three months of publication.

The main difference from the Anthropic class is the limitation to only books that have ISBNs. ASINs don’t count, cutting out a large majority of self and indie published works, even if they do have registered copyrights. You can understand, I suppose, why the plaintiff publishers want the class restricted to the books that they published, but it’s even more grossly unfair to ebooks that were published without ISBNs because ISBNs are only important for physical book distribution. It’s hard to justify limiting a class action this way when, for all practical purposes, the fairer Anthropic settlement’s class definition worked (fingers crossed).

So will there now be a rush by indie authors to purchase ISBNs? It makes sense if, for example, you claimed a book without an ISBN in the Anthropic settlement, since there’s a good chance it will turn up again in the Turow class. Like with copyright registration and rights reversion, the effort and outlay start to look worthwhile. Large copyright class actions and settlements change everything.

Postscript. The fundamental problem is that there is no comprehensive registry for published works.

The post Has the Anthropic Settlement Changed Everything? appeared first on Writer Beware.

Read the whole story
alvinashcraft
just a second ago
reply
Pennsylvania, USA
Share this story
Delete

Daily Reading List – May 22, 2026 (#790)

1 Share

We’ve got a holiday weekend here in the US. It’s a good chance for me to take a breather after a couple of large events, and before doing a couple more in Europe.

[blog] AI and the New Business Moat: Defending Your Competitive Advantage. Is your company “moving the moat” given what AI is capable of doing itself? Double down on unique data? Deepen your expertise? Jason offers good ideas.

[blog] Scaling Software Architecture Without Overengineering. Great points here from Derek about what it really means to have boundaries, and why physical boundaries (e.g. putting microservices on different hosts) may not reduce your coupling or improve your scale.

[blog] The future of agentic development: Redefining the data practitioner lifecycle with Data Agent Kit. We showed this during my session at Google I/O, and it really is an impressive set of skills, tools, and plugins for doing legit work with data. Plug it into your favorite tool to create, query, and troubleshoot data solutions.

[blog] Agentic Design Patterns. Guillaume does a recap of a recent Devoxx talk, and includes his highly-visual and understandable slide deck about categories of agent patterns.

[blog] Introducing the pkg.go.dev API. Most other language ecosystems have discovery APIs for packages. Now Go

[article] How well do public benchmarks predict AI coding agent performance in production. I saw a lot of chatter on this topic over the past few days regarding Gemini 3.5 Flash. Benchmarks are useful, but eval based on your own scenarios.

[blog] Google Cloud Next 2026: The Agent Era and the Full AI Stack. James does a roundup of the highlights from the event, but with his analyst hat on to explain what matters.

[blog] Code was the smallest part of the job. I like “smallest” more than “easiest.” Coding isn’t “easy”; ask anyone who’s wrestled for hours with syntax or getting an outcome JUST right. But building good software systems is the big job.

[blog] What’s new in Flutter 3.44. You might have to block off your afternoon to read all this! But it’s impossible to even skim this and not be impressed by the breadth and momentum of Flutter.

[article] CIOs need a people strategy to scale AI. Nothing new, but still a good reminder about the hard work of change management.

Want to get this update sent to you every day? Subscribe to my RSS feed or subscribe via email below:



Read the whole story
alvinashcraft
37 seconds ago
reply
Pennsylvania, USA
Share this story
Delete

The memory shortage is causing a repricing of consumer electronics

1 Share

The memory shortage is causing a repricing of consumer electronics

David Oks provides the clearest explanation I've seen yet of why consumer products that use memory are likely to get significantly more expensive over the next few years.

The short version is that memory manufacturers - of which there are just three remaining large companies - have a fixed capacity in terms of how many wafers they can process at any one time. This fixed wafer capacity is then split between DDR - used in desktops and servers, LPDDR - used in mobile phones and low-energy devices, and HBM - used with GPUs.

Until recently, HBM got just 2% of that wafer allocation. The enormous growth in AI data centers has pushed that up to an expected 20% by the end of 2026, and "a single gigabyte of HBM consumes more than three times the wafer capacity that a gigabyte of DDR or LPDDR does".

Memory companies have learned from the extinction of their rivals that you should always under-provision rather than over-provision your fabricator capacity. The profit margins and demand for HBM (high-bandwidth memory) will constrain the production of consumer-device RAM for several years.

This is already being felt in the sub-$100 smartphone market, which is particularly important to markets like Africa and South Asia.

(The original title of the piece was "AI is killing the cheap smartphone" but I'm using the Hacker News rephrased title, which I think does more justice to the content.)

Via Hacker News

Tags: memory, ai, ai-ethics

Read the whole story
alvinashcraft
47 seconds ago
reply
Pennsylvania, USA
Share this story
Delete

Towards Speed-of-Light Text Generation with Nemotron-Labs Diffusion Language Models

1 Share
Read the whole story
alvinashcraft
53 seconds ago
reply
Pennsylvania, USA
Share this story
Delete

Hermes vs. OpenClaw, Cybersecurity Alarms Ring, More-Interactive Conversations, Can Agents Do Human Work?

1 Share
The Batch AI News and Insights: Harvard University just voted to limit the number of A grades given in undergraduate classes to about 20% of the class.
Read the whole story
alvinashcraft
1 minute ago
reply
Pennsylvania, USA
Share this story
Delete

Call For Papers Listings for 5/22

1 Share

A collection of upcoming CFPs (call for papers) from across the internet and around the world.

The post Call For Papers Listings for 5/22 appeared first on Leon Adato.

Read the whole story
alvinashcraft
1 minute ago
reply
Pennsylvania, USA
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories