> If you read a book and later understand its plot but can only explain it in your own words, did you copy it? I think that is the center of the conversation.

> If you read a book and later understand its plot but can only explain it in your own words, did you copy it? I think that is the center of the conversation. What does it mean for a computer to "understand"? If I wrote some code that somehow transformed the text of the book and never return the verbatim text but somehow modified the output, I would likely not be spared because the ruling will likely be my transformation is "trivial". Personally, I think we have several fixes we need to make: 1. Abolish the CFAA. 2. Limit copyright to a maximum of 5 years from date of production with no extension possible for any reason. 3. Allow explicit carveout in copyright for transformational work. Explicitly allow format shifting, time shifting, yada yada. 4. Prohibit authors and publishers from including the now obviously false statements like "No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording" bla bla bla in their works. 5. I am sure I am missing some stuff here. For brand protection, we already have trademark law. Most readers here already know this but We really should severe the artificial ties we have created between patents, trademarks, and copyright. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html