←back to thread

US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

(www.theregister.com)
451 points croes | 2 comments | 12 May 25 09:49 UTC | HN request time: 0.927s | source
Show context
prvc ◴[12 May 25 12:28 UTC] No.43962193[source]▶
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): >>43962324 #>>43962424 #>>43962648 #>>43962893 #
bgwalter ◴[12 May 25 12:59 UTC] No.43962424[source]▶
The required reasoning is not very deep though: If an AI reads 100 scientific papers and churns out a new one, it is plagiarism.

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.

replies(9): >>43962554 #>>43962560 #>>43962638 #>>43962665 #>>43962744 #>>43962820 #>>43963108 #>>43963228 #>>43963944 #
1. wizee ◴[12 May 25 15:11 UTC] No.43963944[source]▶
Is reading and memorizing a copyrighted text a breach of copyright? I.e. is creating a copy of the text in your mind a breach of copyright or fair fair use? Is it a breach of copyright if a digital “mind” similarly memorizes copyrighted text? Or is it only a breach of copyright to output and publish that memorized text?

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.

replies(1): >>43964865 #
2. aeonik ◴[12 May 25 16:32 UTC] No.43964865[source]▶
"Filthy eidetics. Their freeloading had become too much for our society to bear. Something had to be done. We found the mutation in their hippocampus and released a new CRISPR-mRNA-based gene suppression system.

Those who were immune were put under the scalpel."