Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9705521" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Well ... I don't think that the headline is accurate or correct, and it does a great disservice to the article.I have a few minor quibbles with the article from a purely legal standpoint, but overall I think it does a pretty good job in a short amount of space outlining some of the issues in a way that might make them a little easier for most people to understand.-For example, I don't think the article actually summarized the rulings very well. And while it did a really good job of pointing out some of the issues (see, e.g., the Lemley controversy) it didn't expand on why that's important.Briefly- so the issue with Lemley quitting the legal defense team and the aside about studies is this; maybe Lemley quit because of the post, but he also quit at the same time that he co-authored a study showing that the AI would regurgitate copyrighted products in part and/or in whole. Which ... yeah. And when the article notes that studies on this exact problem are likely to be undertaken and understood by the companies making the AI products- which means that they are disincentivized to make them or produce them, and so bringing these suits will put plaintiffs at a disadvantage.But overall? For a short article? 4/5 stars. Headline? 0/5 stars.</blockquote>