[hn_throwaway_99]

Agreed, but I also hate how so much of our substantive law basically has to be created by the courts because (a) many of our legislatures, especially at the federal level, have become more and more non-functional, and (b) IMO legislatures are especially bad at implementing technical legislation.

I think there is a good, fundamental legal/societal question of how copyright should apply to AI output. I just don't think our existing copyright structures handle this question well.

Note there is currently a very important case before the SCOTUS that is related to this issue, [1] where the original photographer of a Prince photo is suing Andy Warhol's estate for copyright infringement. The fundamental question is whether the Warhol series of painting are "transformative" enough of the original photo. While there are always gray lines on what "transformative" means, if there is any chance that Warhol's painting are legal and not infringing, I don't see how Copilot could be in the wrong. Copilot's output, even if it contains a substantial amount of the original source, appears to me much more "transformative" than the Warhol paintings are compared to the original photo.

1. https://www.npr.org/2022/10/12/1127508725/prince-andy-warhol...

[CoastalCoder]

I agree. Any law that's only clear after a court ruling is, de facto, an ex post facto law. Disgusting.

[brigandish]

That's how common law works, it's not disgusting, (unless perhaps you're an overzealous adherent of civil law) nor is it ex post facto. Legislation is produced, (claimed) grey areas are challenged in court, if the outcomes appear unfair then legislators (should) update the law.

Badly written law and poor legislators are a problem in any system.

[abigail95]

What the solution?

Is it really better to only draft laws that are clear without courts?

Is that provable?

[anigbrowl]

Here's a book you may enjoy:

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674012417