The article relies on an analysis by an IP law professor, which in turn rests on an analysis of statutory damages under copyright law and Judge Alsup’s findings. “Business-ending” is a direct quote from said professor. That strikes me as a reasonable basis on which to characterize the liability as potentially business-ending, even if people on Manifold do not seem to agree.
Juries are hard to predict, especially where the allowable range for statutory damages is so wide. That the infringement was willful and by a sophisticated actor doesn’t help Anthropic here.
I’d love to hear what their lawyers had to say about all this before the piracy happened (or maybe they weren’t even consulted?) They had to expect copyright suits from the get go, did they not understand that upping the ante with mass piracy was likely to make things much worse?
Good point about it coming from a source. But looking at that, I think that that blog post was had a similarly clickbait headline, though more detailed (“Anthropic faces potential business-ending liability in statutory damages after Judge Alsup certifies class action by Bartz”).
The analysis in question also looks very rough to me. Like a quick sketch / blog post.
I’d guess that if you’d have most readers here estimate what the chances seem that this will actually force the company to close down or similar, after some investigation, it would be fairly minimal.
I found his page on the actual Santa clara law website, and it specifically mentioned that he founded the chatgpt blog in question. So it looks like he is legitimately a qualified law professor and from his profile it looks like he does specialise in IP law stuff.
The article relies on an analysis by an IP law professor, which in turn rests on an analysis of statutory damages under copyright law and Judge Alsup’s findings. “Business-ending” is a direct quote from said professor. That strikes me as a reasonable basis on which to characterize the liability as potentially business-ending, even if people on Manifold do not seem to agree.
Juries are hard to predict, especially where the allowable range for statutory damages is so wide. That the infringement was willful and by a sophisticated actor doesn’t help Anthropic here.
I’d love to hear what their lawyers had to say about all this before the piracy happened (or maybe they weren’t even consulted?) They had to expect copyright suits from the get go, did they not understand that upping the ante with mass piracy was likely to make things much worse?
Good point about it coming from a source. But looking at that, I think that that blog post was had a similarly clickbait headline, though more detailed (“Anthropic faces potential business-ending liability in statutory damages after Judge Alsup certifies class action by Bartz”).
The analysis in question also looks very rough to me. Like a quick sketch / blog post.
I’d guess that if you’d have most readers here estimate what the chances seem that this will actually force the company to close down or similar, after some investigation, it would be fairly minimal.
This got me to investigate Ed Lee a bit. Seems like a sort of weird situation.
The corresponding website in question’s about page doesn’t mention him.
Seems like he has another very similar site, https://bitcoiniseatingtheworld.com/, for reference, also with no about section
Here seems to be his Twitter page, where he advertises his new NFT book.
I found his page on the actual Santa clara law website, and it specifically mentioned that he founded the chatgpt blog in question. So it looks like he is legitimately a qualified law professor and from his profile it looks like he does specialise in IP law stuff.
On the other hand, the blog has posts with questionable methodology like asking chatgpt for probabilities of lawsuit outcomes.
I would like to hear from other IP law specialists.