you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

It's not at all clear that the current model does breach the law.

If it was a court would have issued an injunction or whatever.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's clear from the output that it breaks copyright.

    We don't have to look inside the black box to demand to see the input which caused that output.

    To be clear a machine is not responsible for itself. This machine was trained to break copyright.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Generally if someone is clearly in breach of copyright the rights holder will apply to a court to issue an injunction to order that company to cease their activities until a case can be resolved.

    Given that has not happened, it seems that from a court's perspective, it's not a clear breach of copyright.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    The rights holder first considers the size of the payout vs. the cost of legal fees.

    Just because they haven't been sued directly for this doesn't make it infringement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Nonsense. If this is copyright the payout will be many billions. They've had a year to think about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    The statute of limitations is much longer than a year. It's usually around 5.

    They can wait, see who's made the money, then target them for a payout.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments