A federal judge on Monday skewered a $1.5 billion settlement between artificial intelligence company Anthropic and authors who allege nearly half a million books had been illegally pirated to train chatbots, raising the specter that the case could still end up going to trial.<\/p>\n
After spending nearly an hour mostly lambasting a settlement that he believes is full of pitfalls, U.S. District Judge William Alsup scheduled another hearing in San Francisco on September 25 to review whether his concerns had been addressed.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019ll see if I can hold my nose and approve it\u201d then, Alsup said before adjourning Monday\u2019s hearing.<\/p>\n
Afterwards, the leader of a publishers group involved in the settlement called some of the judge\u2019s revised timetable for approving the deal \u201ctroubling,\u201d in an acknowledgement that the proposed resolution could unravel.<\/p>\n
Alsup \u201cdemonstrated a lack of understanding of how the publishing industry works,\u201d said Maria Pallante, CEO of Association of American Publishers, who attended Monday\u2019s hearing but was not asked to speak.<\/p>\n
The judge\u2019s misgivings emerged just a few days after Anthropic and attorneys who filed the class-action lawsuit\u00a0announced a $1.5 billion settlement<\/a>\u00a0that is designed to resolve the pirating claims and avert a trial that had been scheduled to begin in December.<\/p>\n Alsup had dealt the case a\u00a0mixed ruling in June<\/a>, finding that training AI chatbots on copyrighted books wasn\u2019t illegal but that Anthropic wrongfully acquired millions of books through pirate websites to help improve its Claude chatbot.<\/p>\n The proposed settlement would pay authors and publishers about $3,000 for each of the books covered by the agreement.<\/p>\n Justin Nelson, an attorney for the authors, told Alsup that about 465,000 books are on the list of works pirated by Anthropic. The judge said he needed more ironclad assurances that number won\u2019t swell to ensure the company doesn\u2019t get blindsided by more lawsuits \u201ccoming out of the woodwork.\u201d<\/p>\n The judge set a September 15 deadline for a \u201cdrop-dead list\u201d of the total books that were pirated.<\/p>\n Alsup\u2019s main concern centered on how the claims process will be handled in an effort to ensure everyone eligible knows about it so the authors don\u2019t \u201cget the shaft.\u201d He set a September 22 deadline for submitting a claims form for him to review before the Sept. 25 hearing to review the settlement again.<\/p>\n The judge also raised worries about two big groups connected to the case \u2014 the Authors Guild<\/a> in addition to the Association of American Publishers \u2014 working \u201cbehind the scenes\u201d in ways that could pressure some authors to accept the settlement without fully understanding it.<\/p>\n Authors Guild CEO Mary Rasenberger sat alongside Pallante during Monday\u2019s hearing, ans also was asked to discuss the settlement. The trio of authors \u2014 thriller novelist Andrea Bartz and nonfiction writers Charles Graeber and Kirk Wallace Johnson \u2014 who\u00a0sued last year<\/a>\u00a0also sat in the front row of the court gallery, but didn\u2019t address Alsup.<\/p>\n In a statement issued after the hearing the Authors Guild said it was \u201cconfused\u201d about Alsup\u2019s concern that it might be secretly trying to undermine some of the writers represented in the settlement.<\/p>\n The Authors Guild said its work on the settlement is designed \u201cto ensure that authors\u2019 interests are fully represented\u201d while contributing its expertise to \u201cthe discussions with complete transparency.\u201d<\/p>\n Before the hearing Johnson, author of \u201cThe Feather Thief\u201d and other books, described the settlement as the \u201cbeginning of a fight on behalf of humans that don\u2019t believe we have to sacrifice everything on the altar of AI.\u201d<\/p>\n Nelson, the lawyer for the authors, sought to ensure Alsup that he and other lawyers in the case were confident the money will be fairly distributed because the case has been widely covered by the media, with some stories landing on the front pages of major newspapers.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is not an under-the-radar warranty case,\u201d Nelson said.<\/p>\n Alsup made it clear, though, that he was leery about the settlement and warned he may decide to let the case go to trial.<\/p>\n \u201cI have an uneasy feeling about all the hangers on in the shadows,\u2019\u201d the judge said.<\/p>\n In her statement, Pallante said she hopes Alsup will remain flexible as he learns more about how the publishing industry works so the settlement can be preserved.<\/p>\n \u201cThe court seems to be envisioning a claims process that would be unworkable, and sees a world with collateral litigation between authors and publishers for years to come,\u201d Pallante said. \u201cClass actions are supposed to resolve cases, not create new disputes, and certainly not between the class members who were harmed in the first place.\u201d<\/p>\n \u2014-<\/p>\n O\u2019Brien reported from Providence, Rhode Island.\n<\/p>\n