[joegibbs]

Because facts aren't copyrightable.

I think it's good that Google Search is getting shaken up. There's too much useless blogspam put together by "SEO experts" that nobody actually reads or wants to read, and if it's going to be that or nothing but Reddit comments, then Reddit comments would be better.

This guy posts about nothing but how terrible Google HCU is. I'd be interested in knowing what kind of websites he works on boosting, and whether they actually have content that people want to read without needing meticulous SEO optimisation to achieve good results.

[zero-sharp]

There's plenty of instances where the content produced by chatbots isn't factual and is also based off of content that somebody else worked to produce.

[verdverm]

Derivative works are not copyright infringement. It's why sparknotes for books are possible

[zero-sharp]

Well I don't know the full content of sparknotes. As far as I can remember, it provided summaries and analyses of literature. Those summaries obviously made reference to the original work. And those analyses were most likely not original & common enough to not need sourcing.

I'm not entirely sure what you're claiming. So because we can summarize books, we should allow the chatbot to regurgitate content and not make reference to the original?

[verdverm]

It depends on the context, all copyrights are subject to fair use. You can use exact copies of content as a human, for example when educating, critiquing, or commenting on.

Why should machines built and run by humans be treated differently?

[mdotk]

To be fair, a lot of the content is opinion too.

But I see now on the facts point. Thanks