The released draft report seems merely to be a litany of copyright holder complaints repeated verbatim, with little depth of reasoning to support the conclusions it makes.
replies(4):
If a savant has perfect recall, remembers text perfectly and rearranges that text to create a marginally new text, he'd be sued for breach of copyright.
Only large corporations get away with it.
https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell...
Any suits would be based on the degree the marginally new copy was fair use. You wouldn't be able to sue the savant for reading and remembering the text.
Using AI to creat marginally new copies of copyrighted work is ALREADY a violation. We don't need a dramatic expansion of copyright law that says that just giving the savant the book to real is a copyright violation.
Plagarism and copyright are two entirely different things. Plagarism is about citations and intellectual integrity. Copyright is a about protecting economic interests, has nothing to to with intellectual integrity, and isn't resolved by citing the original work. In fact most of the contexts where you would be accused of plagarism, would be places like reporting, criticism, education or research goals make fair use arguments much easier.
If you draw a Venn Diagram of plagiarism and copyright violations, there's a big intersection. For example: if I take your paper, scratch off your name, make some minor tweaks, and submit it; I'm guilty of both plagiarism and copyright violation.
The average copywrite holder would like you to think that the law only allows use of their works in ways that they specifically permit, i.e. that which is not explicitly permitted is forbidden.
But the law is largely the reverse; it only denies use of copyright works in certain ways. That which is not specifically forbidden is permitted.
What about loosely memorizing the gist of a copyrighted text. Is that a breach or fair use? What if a machine does something similar?
This falls under a rather murky area of the law that is not well defined.
Those who were immune were put under the scalpel."
If you don't have a tape recorder showing Trump saying "Fire Shira, I don't like what she did and she needs to get out" then you are making assumptions both for his reasons and his involvement. No one has that tape. Which means any claims that this is what happening is entirely speculation. We've seen a decade of people claiming these assumptions as fact, and it's really tiresome.
???
Did you not literally comment the following?
>A new research paper is obviously materially different from "rearranging that text to create a marginally new text".
What did you mean by that, if that's not your claim?
It's not related to copyright. It is an example of your hypothetical standard required to attribute something to Trump. My point is that even when he is on camera saying something, that does not prevent the post facto rationalizations. Even if he was on tape firing this person, people would rationalize this away too.
And honestly there is truth to it. Some people (at work, in rea life, wherever) might come off very inteligent but the moment they say "oh I just read that relevant fact on reddit/twitter/news site 5 minutes ago" you realize they are just like you and repeating relevant information that was consumed recently.