Really interesting. I'm not confident a jury will have any more success elucidating an answer than the judge.
Bibas said on Monday that a jury should decide fair use and other questions... [noting] that there were factors in the fair-use analysis that favored each side.
The judge said he could not determine whether Ross "transformed" the Westlaw material into a "brand-new research platform that serves a different purpose," which is often a key fair use question.
Bibas also said he could not decide whether a ruling for Ross or Thomson Reuters would best serve the public interest.
"Here, we run into a hotly debated question... Is it in the public benefit to allow AI to be trained with copyrighted material?"
Really interesting. I'm not confident a jury will have any more success elucidating an answer than the judge.
It should go to congress but God knows they don’t want that. In the short term though court cases will be how it’s decided. There’s only so much that can be done otherwise and at least a full...
It should go to congress but God knows they don’t want that.
In the short term though court cases will be how it’s decided. There’s only so much that can be done otherwise and at least a full trial will have expert (if biased) testimony
No way congress can fully grasp this either. So many of them are out of touch with how the Internet and technology actually work that they will side with whichever special interest group gives...
No way congress can fully grasp this either. So many of them are out of touch with how the Internet and technology actually work that they will side with whichever special interest group gives them the best support or benefit. Ultimately it should be decided by congress, but I do not trust this congress with actually coming up with something that makes any sense.
But what process? Legislative? That runs into some difficult territory, considering how completely technologically illiterate basically every legislator is.
But what process? Legislative? That runs into some difficult territory, considering how completely technologically illiterate basically every legislator is.
Definitely keeping an eye on this case. I'm willing to bet money that if it actually goes to trial, it will be a landmark case that will become a blueprint for regulating AI use.
Definitely keeping an eye on this case. I'm willing to bet money that if it actually goes to trial, it will be a landmark case that will become a blueprint for regulating AI use.
Really interesting. I'm not confident a jury will have any more success elucidating an answer than the judge.
This feels like something that needs a much bigger discussion and should be handled through an avenue far more complicated than a single jury.
It should go to congress but God knows they don’t want that.
In the short term though court cases will be how it’s decided. There’s only so much that can be done otherwise and at least a full trial will have expert (if biased) testimony
No way congress can fully grasp this either. So many of them are out of touch with how the Internet and technology actually work that they will side with whichever special interest group gives them the best support or benefit. Ultimately it should be decided by congress, but I do not trust this congress with actually coming up with something that makes any sense.
But what process? Legislative? That runs into some difficult territory, considering how completely technologically illiterate basically every legislator is.
Definitely keeping an eye on this case. I'm willing to bet money that if it actually goes to trial, it will be a landmark case that will become a blueprint for regulating AI use.