> Reread my comment. If you read my book and write your own it’s OK, if a megacorp provides a tool that ingests my book and automatically writes this book for y

> Reread my comment. If you read my book and write your own it’s OK, if a megacorp provides a tool that ingests my book and automatically writes this book for you (and charges you, and does not pay or credit me) it’s not. This is not something that our courts could ever decide. How would they know if I did not use a LLM tool to assist in writing my new book? > Why it’s not OK? In addition to generating a derivative work based on my book (not on ideas in mine, literally on mine, because this tool is not conscious and does not operate ideas, only the letters), which is already obviously illegal That's not what constitutes a derivative work in the sense of copyright infringement. A derivative work is still a derivative work no matter how it was made. However, it is perfectly legal to say, go to Disney's website, download a JPEG, convert that JPEG to 1s and 0s, print just a bunch of 1s and 0s and not the image, just like a printing press made up of just [1] and [0] character blocks, and sell that. Yes, the 1s and 0s are mathematically derived from the image but the image of 1s and 0s is not a visual derivative of the Disney image. That is, no one is going to buy a t-shirt of 1s and 0s instead of a Mickey t-shirt. Anyone can go to the Disney website and get those same 1s and 0s. > it also kills incentives for people to publish books at all—because now OpenAPI can buy one copy of any book, feed it to its ML tool, then charge people for using it and no one else ever needs to buy this book and give any credit to its author. Implications for open information sharing like blogging and such go without mentioning. There are lots of non-infringing uses for such a tool in the marketplace and this will factor into fair use. (Sony v Universal)