>And yet they very much are. US copyright law has the concept of "fair use" in 17 U.S. Code § 107 [0]. I'll paste here for your benefit, #3 is the one I referenced as most obvious but #1 and #4 are also very relevant:
If you're going to invoke fair use, that opens up a whole can of worms on what counts as transformative. The google books case and the google thumbnails case shows that you can make near verbatim copies of works at scale and still be considered fair use.
>The US justice system is too captured and corrupt at this point to take as reference because decisions there are bought by the highest bidder. But for the purpose of this discussion let's not play dumb for the benefit of trillion dollar corporations.
This is begging the question. The original question is whether ai companies are getting special treatment. You can't then use that as a premise to say that the courts are tilted towards ai companies. Not to mention it's questionable how ai companies were suddenly able to corrupt all the judges, some of which were appointed decades ago, even though they only got rich a couple of years ago.
Look, first you were wrong with the confidence of an LLM and claimed an argument that was literally in the definition of copyright fair use had absolutely no relevance whatsoever for copyright. Even now you are surprised that I invoked fair use on reading a book. That was to respond to someone who "brilliantly" brought up reading Harry Potter [0] as evidence that the law allows any extent of "memorization" and reproduction of copyrighted material.
Then you switched to a barrage of questions on the premise of words in my comments that were neither written nor implied. If you muddy the waters just enough maybe everyone gets lost in there.
> The google books case and the google thumbnails case shows that you can make near verbatim copies of works at scale and still be considered fair use
Now maybe we agree "reading Harry Potter and remembering some lines" is indeed fair use, but you decided my argument is still not relevant to create a distinction between "reading a book" and "feeding it all into an LLM" because of an vaguely related exception. For better or worse thumbnails are a copyright violation according to some courts [1]. But looking at the big "Books" decision (this is the one you meant?), did you check out the court's opinion [2]? Why would you believe the two cases are substantially similar? Just because they're both big tech? Just for yourself, from the definition of fair use and referencing that opinion, do you see any significant differences between "Google Books" and "big LLM"?
> You can't then use that as a premise to say that the courts are tilted towards ai companies
The highest bidder is what I said.
> Not to mention it's questionable how ai companies were suddenly able to corrupt all the judges, some of which were appointed decades ago, even though they only got rich a couple of years ago.
You're getting creative" about what I wrote. "AI companies"? They are just the big corrupting agent of the day, and nobody with deep enough pockets had "revolutionized" the legal areas they're working in to this degree until now. Tech in general has been doing it for a few decades already. Other incredibly powerful industries have been doing that in their respective areas for even longer. "Suddenly"? The US justice system has worked exactly like this for so many decades when it came to the interest of very deep pockets. "All judges"? I said "the system" because all judges don't have the ultimate power to ultimately decide on things.
I'm surprised at your surprise that reading a book is fair use, and that courts have been "captured" and beholden to economic interests above justice for so long we forgot when it started.
If you're going to invoke fair use, that opens up a whole can of worms on what counts as transformative. The google books case and the google thumbnails case shows that you can make near verbatim copies of works at scale and still be considered fair use.
>The US justice system is too captured and corrupt at this point to take as reference because decisions there are bought by the highest bidder. But for the purpose of this discussion let's not play dumb for the benefit of trillion dollar corporations.
This is begging the question. The original question is whether ai companies are getting special treatment. You can't then use that as a premise to say that the courts are tilted towards ai companies. Not to mention it's questionable how ai companies were suddenly able to corrupt all the judges, some of which were appointed decades ago, even though they only got rich a couple of years ago.