I think the Judge is right to ask hard questions. Payouts to authors are going to be distinctly non-linear. 450,000 works is an under-estimate, it's just the ones which can be agreed are involved, but other copyright regimes could reasonably assert their works are also there, and need to be addressed: this isn't the last lawsuit risk by a country mile.
I am also really unsure a simple judgement "it's ok" gets them out of jail free. Contextually, THIS judge ruled it meets some bar for SOME use of the works. Other judges, other courts could still disagree, IPR in printed works is complicated.
Personally I've always disliked the scofflaw aspect of how the training happened. Using the torrents.. that was an amazing act. Not that it isn't entirely rational, but it beggars belief the perps didn't think it posed risks, given their gaming on the other side of the table (individually, if not collectively) to assert IPR controls and avoid risks of abuse when asked by the rights agencies in music and video works.
"smart" companies who use lawyers to say "it's ok when your rich, you can do anything, grab any pussy (book)" are not the legal and ethical model we want from corporates are they?
I am also really unsure a simple judgement "it's ok" gets them out of jail free. Contextually, THIS judge ruled it meets some bar for SOME use of the works. Other judges, other courts could still disagree, IPR in printed works is complicated.
Personally I've always disliked the scofflaw aspect of how the training happened. Using the torrents.. that was an amazing act. Not that it isn't entirely rational, but it beggars belief the perps didn't think it posed risks, given their gaming on the other side of the table (individually, if not collectively) to assert IPR controls and avoid risks of abuse when asked by the rights agencies in music and video works.
"smart" companies who use lawyers to say "it's ok when your rich, you can do anything, grab any pussy (book)" are not the legal and ethical model we want from corporates are they?