About time.

> If the AI industry is to survive, we need a clear legal rule that neural networks, and the outputs they produce, are not presumed to be copies of the data used to train them.

But they are compressed lossy copies of all that data! That's the whole point of noise/denoise functions that neural networks are based upon. The whole mathematical foundation of training a neural network is "teaching" it how to recognize and/or create copies of data stored in the training set.

> Otherwise, the entire industry will be plagued with lawsuits that will stifle innovation and only enrich plaintiff’s lawyers.

When you're willingly breaking already established law en masse for profit in hope no one cares enough, be it copyright law or any other, you're not an "innovator", you're a criminal. The fact that you're a tech giant or a Bay startup doesn't matter in this regard; the only thing that matters is the notable amount of time required for the justice system to catch up with your novel tools for laundering intellectual property.