Those cases are about applying these principals to specific events/facts.
But what part about what I said do you believe to be undecided?
That a human can learn without violating copyright? That a machine can learn without violating copyright?
But what part about what I said do you believe to be undecided?
That a human can learn without violating copyright? That a machine can learn without violating copyright?
Perhaps if all rules were written in stone, and clear of ambiguity, we would not need judges or the legal process. But that’s not how any of this works.