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.

Why is it, that dictionary publishers are not sued? Lexicographers employ much the same methods in studying/analysis of words of copyrighted works, but rather, often "by hand," to develop citations to their corpus (body of evidence from which dictionary statistics are drawn in order to formulate a dictionary entry), and AI seems to even be modeled after the way lexicography has done this very thing for eons, but yet dictionary publishers never seem to be sued about it.

I feel like the case about the fair use and transformative work of "Buffy Vs Edward: Twilight Remixed" is overlooked a lot in these questionable "scrapes" of AI generated stuff. A video editor Rebellious Pixels spliced together two completely original properties, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Twilight, and made them have a conversation between each other, pre-AI, using raw footage only.

It was lauded by the copyright office itself as a great example of transformative work. It's a neat subject to deep dive (about which there are numerous great journalistic investigations), in its numerous YT takedowns and restorations and legal battles. Even when the copyright office itself declares it valid, and legal battles establish it as valid, still AI use of material similarly is somehow sneered upon.

Is it too addictive to repeatedly score goals?

I fully anticipate Apple to just completely pull out of that market entirely. You do not tell me what I will sell in my own store.

Emergency services should already rely on non-cellular communication, like radio. Radio does not require cell towers to be powered.

because "you" are the account; whoever has access to the account has access to it. Some XB1 policies allow other players also signed in to that device (such as a guest) to also play on it, whereas the license to play it is determined by the account accessing it.

because "download" in this case functions as a modifier for "code", not as the noun by which "one-time" modifies. It's a one-time [download code]; not a [one-time download] code. you won't need a code to download it a second time or to make updates.