In the first example, I would ask what you as a teacher are contributing to your students beyond what exist in the textbook. If the answer is nothing, then what

In the first example, I would ask what you as a teacher are contributing to your students beyond what exist in the textbook. If the answer is nothing, then what is the difference between a student taking your class compared to listening to a voice synthesizer? I generally suspect that teachers are selling themselves short if they think that their only contribution is to repeat what exist in the textbook. In the second example, how similar are they compared to the textbook? If they are just copied out sections then yes, it most likely is infringement (assuming they are eligible works to begin with). As with any dance around copyright eligibility and fair use exceptions, the devil is in the details. What I hope is that the law won't just create an other situation where only corporations with large departments of lawyers can do things, while any small fry will be shot down by copyright notices, DMCA, blocked accounts and accusation of hacking. For example, if google want to use any published data for training data, then I want to use published videos on youtube to use for the same purpose. If they don't need a license to use other peoples work, then no EULA, DRM, or user agreement should be able to prevent others to do the exact same thing. I suspect however that google only want data to travel in one direction and will do everything in their lawyers power to keep it that way.