4 ms·
> The law does not account for the new capability. Gotcha. Well, fortunately, you are commenting on a post right now where the judge threw out the copyright c
by stale2002 2y ago
> The law does not account for the new capability.
Gotcha.
Well, fortunately, you are commenting on a post right now where the judge threw out the copyright claims.
So, apparently, I am correct that in this circumstance, that there is no illegal copyright infringement.
> promotes innovation and creativity
I'm this circumstance, it does seem to be promoting innovation and creativity because the AI stuff is allowed!
Glad you agree.
- anileated 2y agoIt’s not a discussion about how the law is being interpreted by a particular court; that much is clear. It’s about how it ought to be interpreted.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- danielmarkbruce 2y agoIt's more likely that relevant legislation needs to change if folks want the law to be different, rather than look to courts.
- anileated 2y agoI suppose it depends on the country. I heard the US is a somewhat unusual culture where concerns usually encoded in legislation in other countries instead battle it out in courts.
- danielmarkbruce 2y agoIn the US there is a bunch of copyright legislation, and has been over time to deal with new things as they come up
- threatofrain 2y agoNo, we should absolutely be interested in figuring out what the law would even say today. It is not obvious. That's why this case is interesting.