nnvvhh

Current US copyright law is not clearly in a place to view model training as infringement. Courts have a long history of permissiveness in the face of copyright challenges to new tech (e.g. the image search engine cases, Google v. Oracle and smartphones, Sony v. Universal and VCRs) and I predict it will happen again with AI. The cat is out of the bag and judges know that finding training to be infringement of each training example will have a negative impact on a new product category. If training was more obviously infringement then that permissiveness would be harder to sell, but in my opinion it's really difficult to argue that a "copy" of an example has been made during training (aside from the copy made to process the example).

Another aspect of this arrangement: you don't pay federal income tax on money you receive as a loan in the US. The money does not count as income because of the matching obligation to pay it back.

Nothing you mentioned has anything to do with communism AS AN IDEOLOGY, though. So why discuss it? It could have been any group based on the logic of your comment.

Thanks for engaging with the paper.

I'm too lazy to check the GPL comment (I'll assume I made a mistake). But as far as I can tell my only reference to Stack Overflow was not about liability based on copying from SO. I was making a comment about a common industry practice.

I think some countries use a different tradeoff than the US for their income tax. Instead of spending a ton of government and taxpayer time and effort to accurately assess what each taxpayer owes, the government simply generates an estimate based on what it knows about each taxpayer and uses that. They accept the reduced accuracy but it is offset by the reduced effort in determining everyone's bills. That is to say, you don't need to move away from an income tax to address the problem.

Sure, but where the burden lies still matters. The plaintiff needing to prove copying is a lot more defendant-friendly than the defendant needing to disprove copying.

Copyright exists upon creation, registration is required to sue. They don't need to register them all.

You're mistaken about who has the burden to prove actual copying. The person alleging infringement has to show that the defendant copied the work.

The simple answer is that the Supreme Court of the United States said as much. Lower courts are bound to follow SCOTUS' holdings. Of course, precedent can always be overturned (i.e. if SCOTUS changes its mind), but the N&P Clause's interpretation is unlikely to be changed.

Congress has a lot of room within a grant of power (e.g. "to promote the progress...") because of the necessary and proper clause. In short, the tight relationship you're demanding is not required.

How would this lead to an antitrust claim?