The ramifications of Anthropic’s major victory last week are still playing out.
Anthropic defeated Concord Music’s motion to amend its complaint to add a new claim based on the use of “pirate” shadow libraries that were revealed in the unrelated lawsuit Bartz v. Anthropic.
Because discovery is set to end this month and because Concord Music didn’t reasonably investigate this theory of infringement, Judge Eumi Lee denied Concord Music’s motion.
In short, there will be no Bartz II.
And if my analysis is correct, Concord Music faces claim preclusion so it cannot file a Bartz II-style lawsuit later.
And, because Anthropic’s alleged use of “pirate” shadow libraries and acquisition of copies from shadow libraries is not a part of this case, Magistrate Judge van Keulen has agreed with Anthropic’s motion to bar deposition questions on “pirate” shadow libraries. However, Concord Music may question witnesses about “the use made by Anthropic of a given dataset, including whether or how LibGen or other datasets were used to train Anthropic’s AI models or as a basis for Anthropic’s AI guardrails,” except to PiLiMi dataset, which Anthropic said was not used.
Magistrate Judge van Keulen also denied Concord Music’s request for “Production and Use of Deposition Transcripts Taken in Bartz v. Anthropic.”
Judge van Keulen also granted Anthropic’s request for information of how many prompts Concord Music had to use to generate lyrics from Claude: “because Publishers intend to present evidence that in their own (or their agents’) experience Anthropic’s guardrails failed at least some number of times, Anthropic must in fairness be permitted to discover and present evidence as to the number of times its guardrails did not fail.”
The Judge also granted Anthropic’s request: “Anthropic’s Interrogatory no. 6: Publishers, via their own access to the 5-million record sample, will disclose to Anthropic: (a) the total number of the Publishers’ (or their agents’) prompts-output pairs that are encompassed in the sample; (b) the number of such prompts in the sample that resulted in the output of song lyrics; and (c) the number of such prompts in the sample that resulted in the invocation of Claude’s guardrails or otherwise failed to elicit song lyrics.
• Publishers may not question Anthropic’s witnesses as to any participation or the lack thereof by Anthropic in torrenting/BitTorrent.
• Publishers generally may not question Anthropic’s witnesses as to how particular datasets were obtained or where they were obtained from, except:
-Publishers may question witnesses as to Anthropic’s data scraping and crawling practices; and
-Publishers may, for a given dataset, ask whether such dataset was licensed.
• Publishers may inquire as to the use made by Anthropic of a given dataset, including whether or how LibGen or other datasets were used to train Anthropic’s AI models or as a basis for Anthropic’s AI guardrails, except:
-Based on Anthropic’s representation that PiLiMi was not used in training any commercial Claude models nor used as a basis for Anthropic’s AI guardrails, as well as balancing the potential for discovery of relevant evidence against the inextricable link that PiLiMi bears to torrenting and the likelihood that such questions will necessarily range into issues not encompassed within the FAC, Publishers may not ask about Anthropic’s use of PiLiMi
DOWNLOAD MAGISTRATE JUDGE VAN KEULEN’S ORDER
Related Stories