• Ross_audio@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    If every time what already exists gets used there’s a risk of a massive fine or court case they’ll throw it away.

    The game now is to delay the legal process long enough until they’ve built the replacement.

    Then they can afford to throw the, essentially faulty, model away.

      • Ross_audio@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        It’s clear from the output that it breaks copyright.

        We don’t have to look inside the black box to demand to see the input which caused that output.

        To be clear a machine is not responsible for itself. This machine was trained to break copyright.

        • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          Generally if someone is clearly in breach of copyright the rights holder will apply to a court to issue an injunction to order that company to cease their activities until a case can be resolved.

          Given that has not happened, it seems that from a court’s perspective, it’s not a clear breach of copyright.

          • Ross_audio@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            The rights holder first considers the size of the payout vs. the cost of legal fees.

            Just because they haven’t been sued directly for this doesn’t make it infringement.