If you role-play an old-timey portrait painter, who is against photography, basically every single argument against AI art/music/etc overlaps perfectly. Photography is far easier to produce that AI art of any kind, can be made by accident by a toddler pressing buttons on a smart phone, and can only copy what already exists. The selfie a New York tourist takes contains more copyrighted material in the background which is directly observable and recognizable as someone else's property and trademark, than anything AI could hope to generate inspired by. Did you get permission from the bridal gown manufacturer when you had your wedding photographed? Did the photographer get such permission? Photography must answer for every single accusation made against AI art, in a way that isn't flat hypocritical or arbitrary "but ai isn't art" (neither can photography be, then).

The "substance" they are "addicted" to is themselves. They are to blame. They have the chemicals already, they released the chemicals. Their own natural bodily processes are the source of the addiction they would need to sue. Next you'll say we should sue the road crew for building such a runnable road, that contributed to your runner's high.

Correct. The person doing the thing is to blame, not the horse they bet on, not the road they ran on, not the JC Penney's catalog they fapped to. They would have to sue themselves, and discovery would identify self as the cause.

The parents are responsible for how much teens use Facebook, and that is the ultimate pin in the entire issue. Facebook can't regulate a teen's usage. Parents must directly. Final answer.

Look at the legal case of "Buffy Vs Edward: Twilight Remixed" and observe that a user created a video made entirely from snips of copyrighted works, making it so that Buffy played by Gellar, was having a conversation with Edward from Twilight. There were no spins on it; they were just straight clips taken at face value, edited in a way that appeared like they could have been speaking to each other.

Lion's Gate tried to have it taken down in 2013, but it was challenged and defeated in court and restored. If this doesn't completely solve the current problem, I'm not sure what other advice to give.

Then the same company will have to sue every kid who plays Stairway to Heaven or Blackbird on the guitar they got for Christmas, in order to maintain the same merit. It's not about the training; it's about the money. The suit only exists because Anthropic has money.

Something which does not enter your body cannot be addictive. This is in the same age-old debate that violent video games "cause" you to commit untoward behaviors which as proven time and time again to be completely impossible. A visual anything does not cause any changes to any person, aside from looking into the sun or a laser. How you use social media is entirely your fault, or the person tasked with your care allows you to access it. The type of court case where parents are charged with murder for their child's crimes, is what needs to be applied here.

It is difficult for me to grasp how this isn't essentially the government fining you, at your own garage sale, for failure to offer competitors' items even when you get no cut.

But the games mentioned aren't really license-related games; they were games you put in the disc tray and ran from the disc. The original Xbox (pre-360) required the disc to run them and to my recollection you didn't install them in a way in which you could play them without the disc. I have all 4 of the original xbox games listed (and they are generally not great games, and really aren't something to launch the program with if you want to be taken seriously I feel). AFAIK they were also pre-achievement games, so your XB acct may not even have a record of you having played them, on the original xbox; I am pretty sure the original had no online connectivity, which is why Halo 1 also has no network connection other than via LAN-style direct hookup. Fans had to hack together a program on PC which tricked the original Xbox into thinking you were connected via LAN directly, in order to make multiplayer online work, before the sequels and remakes added online options.

It is not possible to rip off a style of a story, or else everyone who employs the Hero's Journey or anything similar to a bible story (such as 3 magical guardians bestowing 3 gifts) would have to pay royalties ad infinitum. If style rip-offs were credible, then the original first-person-shooter video game would be wealthy beyond compare, since all first-person-shooters are style rip-offs from it.

AI is trained on the way the words are used, context, when they appear in which order, appropriate priority, among other stats of that nature, in order for its LLM to output those desired patterns. Dictionaries do the same thing, in order to craft dictionary entries, just with fewer or different stats. Lexicographers have been studying the way people use words, in order to discover the most common ways they are used, by observation, in order to fill their dbase/corpus with citations of said methods, and craft an entry for each word based on stats. The reason a single entry for one word has multiple uses, is that the 1-2-3 order of uses is a statistical ranking of how frequently those uses have been observed.

They do, actually. Also, browsing the web involves copying all of the created work onto your device to read it, otherwise you wouldn't be able to read it.

But that is between dictionaries publishers, not on the grounds of the basis described in my comment, where dictionary publishers consume information in much the same manner as an AI training on materials. The analysis is largely the same in concept, but for some reason dictionary publishers have mysteriously escaped legal entanglements for having done so. The word you may be looking for in your explanation might be "mountweasel" which is a fake word inserted into a dictionary in order to spring a trap upon mimics who would attempt to duplicate entries =)

Such idiotic policies would sound to me like reason to pull out of doing business in the EU entirely.

You can copyright specific series of phrases or words in a specific order, but you cannot copyright/trademark a style of writing; this is why there are so many Call of Duty style games, otherwise the makers of the early video game works like Wolfenstein 3D (or earlier) could sue the pants of every first-person-shooter who resembles it. You copyright the specific art, the specific wording, the performed audio, potentially elements of the code, but almost all such games formulaically have menus where you choose weapons and addons and armor and whatnot. That fact is not copyrightable, and cannot legitimately make a basis for a claim that your (property) sales are diminished because someone else came up with a better one. By their own admission, they cannot compete with that, therefore their own strategy is flawed. That's like suing a sports team who bested you by playing the sport better than your team did, causing you to lose the championship.