> it's only purpose is to permit the user to infringe others copyright I'm not a fan of Copilot, but this is an absurd take. Direct comparisons to Napster etc

> it's only purpose is to permit the user to infringe others copyright I'm not a fan of Copilot, but this is an absurd take. Direct comparisons to Napster etc. make very little sense. > without the ability to produce infringing works it is nothing I don't really agree. While Copilot certainly trains on a lot of data it doesn't have the legal right to redistribute, its output is often (nearly always, according to this judge's opinion) not similar enough to any specific copyrighted work to be considered infringement. I do think, when the output is similar enough to a specific copyrighted work, there should be consequences.