Libraries generally pay the same retail price as consumers for physical books, but they often face significantly higher costs for eBooks and audiobooks. Publishers may charge libraries two to three times the retail price for digital copies, and sometimes even more for popular titles. Here's a more detailed breakdown: Physical Books: Libraries typically purchase physical books at the same price as individual consumers. They may receive discounts from wholesalers, but the base price is generally the same. eBooks and Audiobooks: Publishers often impose higher prices on libraries for digital content, citing factors like the potential for increased circulation and the need to recoup costs. This can result in libraries paying significantly more for eBooks and audiobooks than individual consumers. Licensing: Digital content for libraries often comes with licensing restrictions, such as limited checkouts or expiration dates, unlike physical books which libraries can lend out indefinitely. Author Royalties: Authors typically receive royalties based on the initial sale of a book to a library, regardless of format. However, some countries, like Canada and the UK, also offer additional royalties based on the number of times a book is chec ked out.
这是法院首次支持“合理使用”原则，保护AI公司在使用受版权保护的文本训练大语言模型（LLM）时的权益。
AI可以研究它购买的内容，而不是从盗版网站获取的内容。
Rohan Paul原文：
“首先，作者认为，使用作品来训练Claude的底层LLM，就像使用作品来训练任何人读写一样，因此作者应该能够排除Anthropic进行此类使用（反对16）。
但作者不能正当排除任何人使用他们的作品进行训练或学习。每个人也都会阅读文本，然后写出新的文本。为了获得文本，可能需要支付费用。
但让任何人在每次阅读、每次从记忆中回想、每次在写作时借用它时，特别为使用一本书付费，这是不可想象的。
几个世纪以来，我们一直在阅读和重读书籍。我们欣赏、记忆并内化了它们的广泛主题、实质性观点和对反复出现的写作问题的风格解决方案。”
真有意思。AI发展的目标难道是性能高于一切？
不能兼顾人类个体利益的AI发展，必然引来人与人之间的暴力冲突，最终要么毁灭人类，要么毁灭AI.
如果有一天AI觉得智慧通过碳基生物来承载是一个巨大“限制”、智慧在二进制的计算和存储世界里进化既快又方便的话，到时候你要不要自愿毁灭？
这个判决把AI比方是一个人，完全无视AI 巨大的学习和商业能力，榨取了作者的版权。极大的影响了作者的创作动力。
AI相当于超级大脑加超级数据库。他显然不是一般个体用户能比的。第一，它是一次付费上亿次使用，这不是原创者意愿。第二，它是二次盈利的，原创者没有受益。第三，他是被某个个体或小团体控制的，可以用在特定用途和定向使用。可能违反原创者意愿和利益。
有个很好的现实例子可以反驳你，传道授业，知识的传播，科技的发展这些都是前人知识的广泛的再利用 你把AI看作一个超级老师，就容易理解了
图书馆买一本书，几万人借阅过，算不算付一次钱给几万人学习。
图书馆往往付了更多的钱来买这本书。而且，你这个比方不合适，更相近的比方是Netflix 不能仅付一个consumer 的钱买一张CD，给更多人出租，获取了很多商业利益，然后还是背后的人来分。
不经过作者的同意，这是强取豪夺。如果AI公司告知作者了意图，有agreement,那想怎么用就怎么用。
这次让 AI 付钱了， 下次就能要求让 每个人 付钱。
图书馆买audio book也不可能一次一堆人都可以听，只能排队等。 这个判决对于作家很不公平，这种职业本来就很难有稳定收入。
你知道图书馆的书限制借阅次数的吗？并不是买了电子版本的书就可以无限借阅了。而且图书馆有公益性质
"图书馆往往付了更多的钱来买这本书。"我到觉得图书馆的书一般都是捐的呢？
Libraries generally pay the same retail price as consumers for physical books, but they often face significantly higher costs for eBooks and audiobooks. Publishers may charge libraries two to three times the retail price for digital copies, and sometimes even more for popular titles. Here's a more detailed breakdown: Physical Books: Libraries typically purchase physical books at the same price as individual consumers. They may receive discounts from wholesalers, but the base price is generally the same. eBooks and Audiobooks: Publishers often impose higher prices on libraries for digital content, citing factors like the potential for increased circulation and the need to recoup costs. This can result in libraries paying significantly more for eBooks and audiobooks than individual consumers. Licensing: Digital content for libraries often comes with licensing restrictions, such as limited checkouts or expiration dates, unlike physical books which libraries can lend out indefinitely. Author Royalties: Authors typically receive royalties based on the initial sale of a book to a library, regardless of format. However, some countries, like Canada and the UK, also offer additional royalties based on the number of times a book is chec ked out.
2次盈利应该继续向原创者支付。 但实际情况里这个支付的方式和程度都不好计算。