Comment by itkovian_
13 hours ago
I think the better analogy is if you had someone with a superhuman, but not perfect memory read a bunch of stuff, then you were allowed to talk to the person about the things they’d read, does that violate copyright? I’d say clearly no.
Then what if their memory is so good, they repeat entire sections verbatim when asked. Does that violate it? I’d say it’s grey.
But that’s a very specific case - reproducing large chunks of owned work is something that can be quite easily detected and prevented and I’m almost certain the frontier labs are already going this.
So I think it’s just very not clear - the reality is this is a novel situation, the job of the courts is now to basically decide what’s allowed and what’s not. But the rational shouldn’t be ‘this can’t be fair use it’s just compression’. Because it’s clearly something fundamentally different and existing laws just aren’t applicable imo
That's not a great analogy. A person is expected to use their discretion, and can be held legally liable for their actions. A machine is not, and cannot.
> Then what if their memory is so good, they repeat entire sections verbatim when asked. Does that violate it? I’d say it’s grey.
That's an unambiguous "yes". Performing a copyrighted play or piece of music without the rights to do so is universally considered a copyright violation, even if the performers are performing from memory. It's still a copyright violation if they don't remember their parts perfectly and have to ad-lib sometimes, or if they don't perform the entire work from start to finish.