> Whether that learning comes via ML, or a real flesh human brain, i think, makes no distinction.
You think. Others disagree. It has not yet been tested in court.
You think. Others disagree. It has not yet been tested in court.
courts don't create new rights, they interpret existing laws.
I can't really see how the existing copyright laws can be interpreted such that a distinction could be made between a machine learning and a human learning.
Courts do indeed interpret existing laws. The question of whether current laws regarding human learning apply equally to machine learning is one of interpretation, precisely the sort of thing that is ultimately resolved by court decisions, including appeals potentially up to the supreme court, establishing precedents. Until that process takes place, your interpretation is just your interpretation, not the interpretation.
I do not believe such rights exist under current copyright laws. Others argue that it does (or ought to exist).
Additionally there is something to be said for overfitting: On one end of a spectrum I could have a well trained AI and on the other end I could have a lookup table of the training data and somewhere in the middle maybe a model that overfits a lot and produces something close to the original content. How about that? I think there are a lot of interesting questions here.
cough what about high-frequency trading?
Black Rock slams into the topic