> What's with the default to "if it's not explicitly legal, it must be illegal"? Authors have explicitly and deliberately made it illegal for a person (or corp

> What's with the default to "if it's not explicitly legal, it must be illegal"? Authors have explicitly and deliberately made it illegal for a person (or corporation) to do what Copilot is doing. Doing it through the legal non-entity of an AI changes absolutely nothing; it's still illegal. To say otherwise is to say that "AI-washing" can be used to nullify any law, which is of course totally absurd. The assumption you lead with is not what anyone is actually trying to argue.