Our society is built on the assumption that attackers are inefficient or dumb.
On the other hand, if Tencent owned the corpus, that isn't really an issue. Similarly, there have been automated finance articles for more than a decade using knowledge extraction algorithms against things like earnings reports, and copyright of those reports has not been an issue. Admittedly, that may only be because those releasing the reports do so in part to get the word out, and so they want reporting to be done on them. Even if they had a copyright claim that it wasn't fair use, they may not have the incentive to enforce it.
Regardless, this all opens up some fascinating discussions of the agency of AI, what constitutes true AI vs. a simple program or algorithm, assignment of who actually would own the copyrights of computer generated content... I think it's going to take some time for the law to catch up to technology on these topics.
Bots don’t care about those incentives. Once built, that’s all they do.
Thanks for such an insightful idea! I'm not 100% sure which side I come down on, but it's very thought provoking, the sort of discussion that draws me in to HN.