I would imagine that for over 99% of the books covered in this lawsuit, they're earning less than $3000 per book.
Put another way, their revenues wouldn't drop much if they simply hadn't trained on those 99%.
Put another way, their revenues wouldn't drop much if they simply hadn't trained on those 99%.
Given the entire global economy is currently bullish on the potential profitability of AI, I dare say they got off incredibly lightly settling for just $3k per book.
If you think it should be different then you have to make a cogent argument why the public should get to interfere with a settlement the two sides mutually agree on.
Exclude one book from the training dataset.
Did you make a worse model?
We actually know the answer to this, and it is: absolutely not.
The reality is this: your intellectual output is almost always only valuable to any company in existence in aggregate, never in isolation.