1) It's definitely copying, but that doesn't necessarily mean the end product is itself a copyright violation. (And that remains true even where some of the ste

1) It's definitely copying, but that doesn't necessarily mean the end product is itself a copyright violation. (And that remains true even where some of the steps to make it were themselves violations). 2) Agreed! Where this becomes interesting with LLMs is that, as with people, they can have the capacity to produce a derivative work even without having seen the original. For example, an LLM that had "read" enough reviews of Harry Potter might be able to produce a reasonable stab at the book (at least enough so for the law to consider it a derivative) without ever having consumed the work itself or direct derivatives. 3) It's more of a tool-use and intent argument. One might make the argument that an LLM is a machine, not a set of content/data, and that the liability for what it does sits firmly with the user/operator, not those who made it. If I use a typewriter to copy Harry Potter - or a weapon to hurt or kill someone - in neither case does the machine or its maker have any liability there.