Then you misunderstood my point. I think copyright law should be significantly changed and the current system hurts us all.
The more interesting question is IMO if AI training actually falls into one of these cases. You can read a book and also copy it, but you do not do because of the law. However, you have the ability to do so. Is having the ability to do something already forbidden?
It's like if you read a plumbing book and then made YouTube videos on how to fix a sink.
The law they broke was pirating the materials, not training per se, even though training is what so many people object to: the judge ruled that actually training a model, when the materials you used were ones you otherwise had lawful access to, was not a breach of law.
IMO, the laws need to change to reflect what tech can now do. This wouldn't be the first time, copyright law has had to shift several times before as new means of reproduction are created.
* the Anthropic one
No, they were responding to the post defending OpenAI that you wrote. If you meant to communicate something other than “criticism of OpenAI in this context is unwarranted” then it looks like you forgot to do that and wrote something else instead
Is quoting “criticism of OpenAI” without the rest of the post a way of saying “checkmate”?
How? The current system enables the GPL. The GPL protects many open source projects.
Why has restrictive Linux succeeded far more than any BSD ever has?
You still haven't articulated how that's restrictive.
I did not bring up Linux, much less called it bad, yet you made up a strawman and started attacking it. Good day.
A license in isolation isn't interesting. The practical results of projects under a license is interesting.
Linux is a very successful practical result under the GPL and copyright makes the GPL work. Without copyright the GPL would be unenforceable.
Without copyright, the GPL would be unnecessary.
It really is one of those "without law you cannot have freedom" things.