> Copyright protects distribution, not use, because protecting use would be hideously draconian. To protect use means that the government can enter your home an

> Copyright protects distribution, not use, because protecting use would be hideously draconian. To protect use means that the government can enter your home and validate how you use the stuff you've acquired. It says that you not only control your works, but all things even remotely derived from it. The implication here is that training ML models on your source material and then having it regurgitate that source material verbatim is not distribution. > Derived works <> preventing machine learning model translation. A derived work is typically something like adding a chapter or translating. The output of the model can be a derived work though. > This would kill video game genres. > This would kill novel genres. > This would kill most of the internet and the ability to download images at all. How? This is hyperbole. You're arguing that the ML model doesn't do "distribution" and are attacking "use" when that's not the real point. > Open this door and the entire system of copyright will turn into an absolute monster. Every large copyright holder will use the precedent and they will argue with validity that they have the right to control your use of their material as well. The DMCA already exists. I agree it's bad but we're taking law here not morality. > Ensure people who distribute images that are clones made with the models can be hit with copyright. How do you in good faith argue that ChatGPT for example is not doing the distribution? OpenAI are responsible for generating and showing you the output based on some instructions they have provided.