Anthropic’s $1.5B copyright settlement is getting messy as judge delays approval
Anthropic’s $1.5B copyright settlement is getting messy as judge delays approval
Anthropic 15 亿美元版权和解案陷入混乱，法官推迟批准
After several authors and class members raised objections to Anthropic’s $1.5 billion settlement over its widespread book piracy to train AI, a federal judge has delayed final approvals of the settlement. 在多位作者和集体诉讼成员对 Anthropic 因大规模盗版书籍用于 AI 训练而达成的 15 亿美元和解协议提出异议后，一位联邦法官推迟了对该协议的最终批准。
On Thursday, US District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin declined to rubber-stamp what’s regarded as the largest copyright settlement in US history. Instead, she wanted to better understand why some class members were objecting and opting out of the settlement. 周四，美国地方法官 Araceli Martinez-Olguin 拒绝直接批准这项被视为美国历史上规模最大的版权和解协议。相反，她希望更深入地了解为何一些集体诉讼成员提出异议并选择退出该协议。
So, she asked authors to address key concerns of objectors, who argued that lawyers’ compensation was way too high and payments to class members were a “pittance.” 因此，她要求原告方回应异议者的核心关切，这些异议者认为律师的报酬过高，而支付给集体诉讼成员的赔偿金简直是“微不足道”。
Ars reviewed several objections to the settlement, as well as letters from objectors who claimed that the authors’ legal team was trying to unfairly shut them out from voicing concerns. Ars 查阅了针对该和解协议的多份异议书，以及来自异议者的信件，他们声称原告方的法律团队试图以不公平的方式阻止他们表达关切。
Calling out lawyers for requesting more than $320 million in legal fees when each author only expects a $3,000 payout, some objectors asked the court to delay approving the settlement until a more reasonable plaintiff compensation plan is constructed. 一些异议者指出，律师团队索要超过 3.2 亿美元的律师费，而每位作者预计仅能获得 3,000 美元的赔偿，因此他们请求法院推迟批准该协议，直到制定出更合理的原告赔偿方案。
“Every dollar that Counsel takes from the Settlement fund is one that is not given to those actually harmed,” wrote Pierce Story, an objector and author of two works covered by the settlement. “律师从和解基金中拿走的每一美元，都是没有给到真正受害者手中的钱，”和解协议涵盖的两部作品的作者、异议者 Pierce Story 写道。
To support his arguments against the eye-popping lawyer fees, Story estimated that the large payout could break down to lawyers receiving between roughly $10,000–$12,000 per hour, which he said included a generous estimate of hours for any future work. 为了支持他反对高昂律师费的论点，Story 估算称，这笔巨额赔偿意味着律师每小时的收入约为 10,000 至 12,000 美元，他表示这已经包含了对未来工作时间的慷慨预估。
That’s excessive, Story suggested, citing a T-Mobile case where the 8th Circuit court observed that “no reasonable class member would willingly pay” a much lower requested fee award between $7,000–$9,500. Story 认为这太过分了，并引用了一起 T-Mobile 的案件，当时第八巡回法院指出，“没有理性的集体诉讼成员会愿意支付” 7,000 至 9,500 美元这样较低的律师费。
Story accused lawyers of breaking a promise to tie their compensation to member payouts. And he’s further frustrated that the compensation they’re seeking is tied to the full settlement fund, when many authors entitled to compensation have yet to register and “are unlikely to be compensated.” Story 指责律师违背了将他们的报酬与成员赔偿挂钩的承诺。此外，他感到更加沮丧的是，律师寻求的报酬是基于整个和解基金计算的，而许多有权获得赔偿的作者尚未注册，且“不太可能获得赔偿”。
An attorney for authors confirmed on Thursday that “authors and other copyright holders filed claims covering over 92% of the more than 480,000 works included in the settlement.” But objectors maintain that lawyers’ pay should reflect the total number of claimants, not the total amount in the settlement fund. 原告方律师周四证实，“作者及其他版权持有者已提交了涵盖和解协议中 48 万多部作品中超过 92% 的索赔申请。”但异议者坚持认为，律师的报酬应反映索赔人的总数，而不是和解基金的总额。
By urging the court to make “reasonable and fair adjustments” to lower attorney fees, Story is hoping to increase compensation to authors. Offering an example, he noted that “a still-generous Counsel payout of $70 million would yield a nearly 25 percent increase in individual Plaintiff awards, while Counsel would still receive the equivalent of their current top rates” for hours worked. 通过敦促法院做出“合理且公平的调整”以降低律师费，Story 希望能增加作者的赔偿金。他举例说明：“即便律师费降至 7000 万美元，这依然是一笔慷慨的报酬，且能使每位原告的赔偿额增加近 25%，同时律师仍能获得相当于其当前最高时薪的报酬。”
To Story, it also seemed like the attorneys could’ve gotten more compensation for authors, but instead of pursuing “creative options,” they “settled far too quickly to maximize” their own compensation. 在 Story 看来，律师本可以为作者争取到更多赔偿，但他们没有寻求“创造性的方案”，而是“为了最大化自身利益而过快地达成了和解”。
“Were the attorneys as skilled, gritty, and brilliant as they profess, and were the Settlement the ‘home run’ Counsel claims it to be, Plaintiffs would receive more than this pittance,” Story said. “如果律师真像他们自称的那样技术精湛、坚韧且才华横溢，如果这份和解协议真如律师所言是‘全垒打’，那么原告获得的赔偿绝不应只是这点微薄的钱，”Story 说道。
Ruben Lee, another class member objecting, agreed: “I believe the amount offered is paltry, and does not in any way reflect the full value of the unauthorized use of my work.” 另一位提出异议的集体诉讼成员 Ruben Lee 表示赞同：“我认为提供的金额少得可怜，根本无法反映未经授权使用我的作品所带来的全部价值。”
Objectors may not win every fight, but they have seemingly persuaded the court to at least entertain their strongly worded pleas, including warnings that the settlement may not survive an appeal if the terms aren’t re-examined. 异议者可能无法赢得每一场抗争，但他们似乎已经说服了法院至少考虑他们措辞强硬的请求，其中包括警告称：如果不对条款进行重新审查，该和解协议可能无法通过上诉。
Notably, their objections came shortly before a group of 25 class members opting out of the settlement filed a new lawsuit, showing that Anthropic is not done fighting these claims. 值得注意的是，在他们提出异议后不久，一组选择退出和解协议的 25 名集体诉讼成员提起了一项新的诉讼，这表明 Anthropic 在这些索赔案上的麻烦远未结束。
“For the Court to agree that counsel’s request of nearly a third of a billion dollars, while individual plaintiffs settle for a pittance of available compensation and no protections against future abuse is an aberration of civil justice and a slap in the face to all those who labored to publish their works,” Story said. “如果法院同意律师索要近 3.3 亿美元的费用，而个人原告却只能获得微薄的赔偿，且未来不受任何防止滥用的保护，这将是对民事正义的扭曲，也是对所有辛勤创作并出版作品的人的羞辱，”Story 说道。
“Such a decision would also further the too-often-observed stereotype that … class-action Plaintiffs are merely tools used to obtain Powerball-size payouts to attorneys.” “这样的决定也将进一步加深人们常见的刻板印象，即……集体诉讼的原告仅仅是律师获取巨额报酬的工具。”
Judge William Alsup, who initially approved the settlement but has since retired, also questioned whether the lawyers’ fees were too high. Worried that the settlement was being “shoved down the throat of authors,” he recommended an independent investigation to ensure no improper attorneys’ fees would be granted, but according to Lea Bishop, a non-class member objector and professor of copyright law, the recommendation “was not squarely disclosed to incoming Judge Martinez-Olguin” in a status report submitted by authors’ lawyers. 最初批准该和解协议但现已退休的 William Alsup 法官也曾质疑律师费是否过高。由于担心和解协议被“强加给作者”，他建议进行独立调查以确保不会授予不当的律师费。但据非集体诉讼成员异议者、版权法教授 Lea Bishop 称，原告律师提交的状态报告中“并未向新任法官 Martinez-Olguin 明确披露”这一建议。
Additionally, class members weren’t notified of the investigation. Authors must respond to objections raised by May 21, when Anthropic will also have to file a brief explaining “why late opt outs should not be honored,” the judge ordered. 此外，集体诉讼成员并未收到有关该调查的通知。法官下令，原告必须在 5 月 21 日前回应所提出的异议，届时 Anthropic 也必须提交一份简报，解释“为何不应接受逾期退出申请”。
Attempts to shut out some objectors 试图排挤部分异议者
Objectors also feel strongly that the settlement should not be approved unless Anthropic agrees to restrict future uses of pirated works. James R. Sills, who has two works included in the settlement, insisted that due to ambiguity over how each individual work was acquired, Anthropic must agree to destroy all copies of works, both digital and physical, before the settlement can proceed. 异议者还强烈认为，除非 Anthropic 同意限制未来对盗版作品的使用，否则不应批准该和解协议。James R. Sills 的两部作品被包含在和解协议中，他坚持认为，由于每部作品的获取方式存在模糊性，Anthropic 必须同意销毁所有数字和实体副本，和解协议才能继续进行。
“Currently, Anthropic will not delete any scanned physical copies of works/books,” Sills wrote. “So, they currently can use these works. The key problem: I don’t know how Anthropic acquired/pirated my two works. No authors will know how their works were taken by Anthropic. So, no authors will know if their works will be destroyed or not. Therefore, all forms of all of the works must be destroyed and not utilized by Anthropic.” “目前，Anthropic 不会删除任何已扫描的实体作品/书籍副本，”Sills 写道。“因此，他们目前仍可以使用这些作品。关键问题在于：我不知道 Anthropic 是如何获取/盗用我的两部作品的。没有作者知道他们的作品是如何被 Anthropic 获取的。因此，没有作者知道他们的作品是否会被销毁。因此，所有作品的所有形式都必须被销毁，且不得再被 Anthropic 使用。”