Quarondeau

No. It needs to depend on how close the written code (and maybe the UI design if it passes the threshold of originality) is to the original, otherwise you end up protecting ideas and functionalities, which has always been held as beyond the purpose of copyrights.

People are going to find ways using AI to create functionally equivalent clones where the methods, flows and structures are so radically different from the original, that it can't reasonably be called a derivative work in the copyright sense.

"you own the outputs..."

That's not even the case. No one "owns" the output. Raw generative AI outputs don't come with any new (copy)rights, which are currently only granted to human creative outputs.

On a side note, I wish Doctorow would stop listing URLs in the middle of his articles, instead of using descriptive text with a URL anchor.

My screen reader always reads them in full ("H T T P S colon slash slash..."), which is very disruptive when listening to an article, especially with 14 interruptions.

That's not what I said. The concern is not about "answering questions" about original works. That would probably be acceptable at any scale. It is whether the approach foreseeably results in the creation of market substitutes that compete with original works.

This goes back to the original purpose of copyright, which is to serve as an economic incentive for individual creators and artists to make more art, by securing exclusive rights to use their own works commercially for a specified time. The goal is both the creation of more works, but also to protect the economic viability of artists.

This principle is quite universal and can be found in many places, including the US constitution and US (supreme) court decisions, many international jurisdictions, treaties and conventions.

It would hardly make a dent. And if you hired hundreds of savants, the knowledge would still be spread over hundreds of separate minds.

And even if we grant that those savants are also very skilled at creating "market substitutes" based on their training that are capable of competing with the original works, their maximum creative output would only be a relatively small number of new works, because they can only work at human speed.

There's a huge difference in scale. The human mind can only process a limited portion of all works available over a lifetime. Human learning is therefore naturally limited to small-scale reuse, which serves to keep it proportional.

A machine training on all copyrighted materials in the world for commercial purposes at an industrial scale makes it disproportionate.

Wouldn't the proverbial reasonable person jump out of the way of a vehicle that's already nearly on the verge of colliding with them? Pulling out a gun seems to be the less instinctual thing to do in such a situation.

I also wonder if they'll ever find out who screamed "F*ing B*tch" at her in that moment.

He shot while only being a few feet away from the car, which had already started to drive off.

Why would a trained officer believe that shooting at the driver from only a few feet away would have a higher chance of improving his chances against being hit by the car (which was already well in motion), than trying to physically move out of its way? That makes no sense.

For the record, I totally agree that you should have this ability.

But they are likely orienting themselves with GDPR and similar laws around the world, under which data exports and portability only include your own data, and specifically exclude that of other "data subjects".

This is one of the few areas where I think that GDPR may be too strict.

Raffles are meant to increase engagement and participation, and getting conference participants to interact with prize sponsors and remain until the closing remarks. If employers started to demand that any prizes won be considered property of the company instead of the person who won, participants would likely start paying less attention and probably skip raffle activities altogether.

I welcome the initiative. At the same time, there probably needs to be some kind of "freedom of panorama" exception to take and use pictures where someone's likeness just happens to be featured incidentally/in the background, like pictures of tourist attractions, public events, urban photography etc.

Otherwise everyday photography in public spaces would become legally risky or impractical, especially in crowded areas where avoiding all faces is nearly impossible and where the focus clearly isn't on the individuals but the landmark or scene itself.

Seems odd that it's not being sold off. Was it truly that worthless?

It was also a great way to read paywalled articles for free.