I'm assuming greater computing power is a requirement because creating generative feature length movies (which is a few orders of magnitude more complex than cr

I'm assuming greater computing power is a requirement because creating generative feature length movies (which is a few orders of magnitude more complex than creating PNGs) is something only massive corporations can afford the computing power to do at the moment (and the implied bar for excellence something we haven't reached). Certainly computing power and dev resource are more of a bottleneck to creating successful AI movies than not having access to the Disney canon which was the argument the OP made for anything other than OpenAI having unlimited rights over everyones content leading inexorably to a Disney generative AI monopoly. (another weakness of that is I'm not sure the Disney canon is sufficient training data for Disney to replace their staff with generative movies, never mind necessary for anyone else to ever make a marketable quality movie again) Given #1, I think the OP is framing the conversation in a far more duplicitous manner by assuming that in a lawsuit against AI which doesn't even involve Disney, the only beneficiary of OpenAI not winning will be Disney. Disney extending copyright laws in past decades has nothing to do with a 10 year old internet company objecting to Open AI stripping all the copyright information off its recent articles before feeding them into its generative model. > Further - "All property rights depends on public funding the infrastructure to enforce them" Is false. This is only the case for intellectual property rights, where nothing need be removed from one person for the other to be "in violation". People who don't respect physical property are just as capable of removing it as people who don't respect intellectual property are capable of copying it. In both cases the thing that prevents them doing so is a legal system and taxpayer funded enforcement against people that don't play by the rules.