zlacker

That's not a philosophical argument at odds with our current understanding of copyright law. That's exactly what this judge found copyright law currently is and it's quoted in the article being discussed.

>>kevinp+(OP)
Thanks for pointing that out. Obviously I hadn't read the whole article. That is an interesting determination the judge made:

> Alsup ruled that Anthropic's use of copyrighted books to train its AI models was "exceedingly transformative" and qualified as fair use, a legal doctrine that allows certain uses of copyrighted works without the copyright owner's permission.

>>organs+87
There are still questions: is an AI a 'user' in the copyright sense?

Or even, is an individual operating within the law as fair use, the same as a voracious all-consuming AI training bot consuming everything the same in spirit?

Consider a single person in a National Park, allowed to pick and eat berries, compared to bringing a combine harvester to take it all.