Post #4191178
2026-07-21 15:33 UTC
The judge’s logic is baffling:
“Here, every purchased print copy was copied in order to save storage space and to enable searchability as a digital copy,” Alsup wrote in his ruling. “The print original was destroyed. One replaced the other. And, there is no evidence that the new, digital copy was shown, shared, or sold outside the company.”
AI companies are using the book to create a commercial product. Just because that product isn’t an exact copy of the book doesn’t mean they’re not abusing the copyright.
Replies (1)
-
@Miller@lemmy.world 2026-07-21 16:00
It is not baffling, humans have been inspired and influenced in their own work by the work of others since the very start. If you read a book and learn a few words and concepts and then use them in your own book it is called creativity but if AI does it then its called slop. I am human and I am on the side of the humans here, my point is the two things look identical in law and we need a way to distinguish them in the same way acknowledged derivation is differentiated from plagiarism.