The article never actually answers it’s own question. I think the courts will eventually find gen AI transformative, like it has done with all forms of AI trained on public facing data before it.
This conversation has always been muddled by the fact that the history and law around “copyright” has always been very muddled, and the begging question of if “copyright” is even a good thing or services its presumed purpose.
Independent of AI, we should all be considering if we even agree with the modern notion of copyright.
A reminder of an older time, but very much worth the watch…
It doesn’t matter.
The ultimate utility of the ai and the threat that it poses if the west falls behind in ai research, is too great to allow copyright laws to get in the way.
So either they’ll say that the law doesn’t apply or they’ll make new laws.
Pandora’s box has been opened and we can’t go back.
How is this a violation of copyright law but not outright theft?
Yes, but the real issue is the egregious violation of personal privacy, especially for cases like Meta’s glasses.
