• @Ross_audio
    link
    111 months ago

    It’s clear from the output that it breaks copyright.

    We don’t have to look inside the black box to demand to see the input which caused that output.

    To be clear a machine is not responsible for itself. This machine was trained to break copyright.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      011 months ago

      Generally if someone is clearly in breach of copyright the rights holder will apply to a court to issue an injunction to order that company to cease their activities until a case can be resolved.

      Given that has not happened, it seems that from a court’s perspective, it’s not a clear breach of copyright.

      • @Ross_audio
        link
        111 months ago

        The rights holder first considers the size of the payout vs. the cost of legal fees.

        Just because they haven’t been sued directly for this doesn’t make it infringement.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          011 months ago

          Nonsense. If this is copyright the payout will be many billions. They’ve had a year to think about it.

          • @Ross_audio
            link
            111 months ago

            The statute of limitations is much longer than a year. It’s usually around 5.

            They can wait, see who’s made the money, then target them for a payout.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              111 months ago

              A court wouldn’t look favourably on that.

              Rights couldn’t have been very b important if you just let it run.

              • @Ross_audio
                link
                111 months ago

                They really don’t care. It can take a lot of time to put a solid case together and you’re better off having a solid case than a quick trial.