> The line we draw is "did a human creatively and intentionally produce the output" or "did a computer". Nope! Thats not true at all. If a human word for wor

> The line we draw is "did a human creatively and intentionally produce the output" or "did a computer". Nope! Thats not true at all. If a human word for word wrote out the harry potter books, they wouldn't be protected. Instead, the line is drawn at if the new works is covered under fair use. And a human is perfectly able to use a computer to do that in all sorts of circumstances. The human or computer being involved is completely irrelevant here. > human creativity Nope. Human creativity only matters for protecting works. It has nothing to do with whether you can create them with a computer. It is perfectly possible for it to be completely legal to use a computer produce a piece of work, without infringing on anything, and yet the newly created work isn't protected in the future from other people copying it.