Sony publishes this on Jun 24, 2026, Ars Techinca (for example) picked up the news on Jun 29, 2026,
https://arstechnica.com/gadget...
Other outlets picked it up around the same time... there was a hoopla online, youtube videos, outrage galore,
Slashdot picks it up on Jul 16, 2026...
And is not even a dupe...
How low the mighty have fallen...
What is the case to come here anymore?
Is one thing when the partners say:
We will move to non-HP Ink, as in SmartInk or Cartridge world, that you as a consumer know right away that they are not HP, and know what you are geting into...
And a very different thing is to threaten to sell COUNTERFEIT cartridges, as in cartridges that say HP in the Box, HP in the plastic moldings, mimic the HP box, logos and holograms, and yet you as a consumer are none-the-wiser that these were not made by HP
The partners should have been fined harder
It's not just up to them, it's up to copyright law.
And why do you think you speak for all book authors over all time?
People like you think libraries should be shut down, fair use removed, and no one allowed to resell a book they read.
Literally the logical conclusion to your post.
I suppose I need to pay you every time I point someone to you works to?
Do I have to pay you when I finish you book and give it to someone else?
Did they ever mention copyrights on Star Trek???
Why would that even come up?
We would absolutely have a form of copyright post scarcity. Because post scarcity one of the thing that differentiate people is what they created.
Any you got your law degree from...? and you have read all the contracts.. when? and where in these contract violation in the contract?
Don't tell me you are some ignorant blowhard spewing nonsense that fits your bias?
Yes, it does in America. Please read US copyright code. fair use is a things. I can give you a used book for free, and you can read it and give it to someone else for free and so on. No copyright violation. Yu can access works for free through Libraries.
Copyright expires.
"It is not a court case you'd win; the details taken from the Disney version are beyond excessive."
We have decades of court cases that show you are wrong. STFU.
"beyond excessive."
based on what?
"f downloading massive torrents of pirated copies of books and processing them."
Downloading isn't piracy, please read copyright code.
" to generate new content, "
What a misleading phrase.
" much of which non-factual in nature,"
It's called Fiction. Your library has a whole section.
"and often very arguably explicitly creatively derivative."
Not really.. or no more then people who write.
prompt: "Make a story like sleeping beauty"
Make a story based on open content. that's bad.. why?
" just self-publish that on Amazon"
And that's bad, why?
"boom I'm an author!"
correct. and? also, you are the author of a work that can't be copyrighted.
"You seriously telling me this is NOT copyright infringement? "
It is not. Not be any definition is the infringement. It's a different telling. You are letting your hate of AI suppress your critical thinking.
"the prose above is a pretty blatant Disney ripoff."
No, it isn't. but guess what? people write is style similar all the time. It's not copyright infringement.
People are trained by reading all the time. People saying otherwise is just simply dumb.
" LLMs are doing everything that humans do, "
I don't think people say that' however when it comes to speech patterns, AI are like humans because its based on Zipf's law. Which shows people speak in a very predictable manner.
"LLMs need real thought,"
define "real thought" in a meaningful way. In fact, write a book to be celebrated as the first person to do that. In the mean time, stow your Scotsman.
" It's not because we're force-fed them in order to regurgitate them later. "
Well, we are as children. IF your parent give a damn, you are read books as a child.
No AI regurgitates a work. There is no example of AI repeating any work outside of fair use.
IN America, Downloading is pirating, distribution is. Read the code.
There is no example of any AI repeating an entire work beyond fair use.
" go ahead and help themselves without finding out what was appropriate under current legal structure?"
do you do that every time you read a web page? a book?
"it's not the same way a human reads a novel."
its like a mother reading to a child, so the statement stands. Plus, it's not A novel.
" a human doesn't "train" on a novel, "
we absolutely do.
"implies learning to duplicate its structure"
Which is what children do.
"The only humans "training" on a novel and proceeding to write their own are what we call cut and dried plagiarists"
lol, no. Every thing you write is based on everything you read and learned. All humans.
Sitting in a librasy and writes a book bu cutting a word from all the other books is not copyright infringement, nor is it plagiarism. Plagiarism is an academic thing, not a legal thing. Just so you know.
They didn't take anything.
" In an ideal world they'd be forced to remove it from their data "
You do not understand AI.
If you write a book, do you get permission from every author you have read in the past? why not? you book is built upon everything you learned, so clearly they own a piece, right?
How is reading copyright infringement? It's no different then what AI is doing.
Also, copyright is about disturbing works. There is no record of any AI distributing works beyond fair use.
If I write a book by cutting the words out of a library full of books, it's not copyright infringement. Same with AI.
Bunch of people don't understand AI. these same writer probably rally against libraries.
A sheet of paper is an ink-lined plane. -- Willard Espy, "An Almanac of Words at Play"
