• Ross_audio@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 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.

    • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 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.

          • Ross_audio@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 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.

              • Ross_audio@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 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.