Maybe not but even if Meta did buy 1 copy of every book I doubt it would stop anyone from making bad analogies to theft. (Not that the analogy on the other side to a human reading is any better.)
>You have bought the text so you have the readright, but you do not the copyright.
You do however, have the right to make derivative works based on the contents of the book. You reading a physics textbook doesn't mean you can't write a blog post about gravity or whatever, and you reading harry potter doesn't mean you can't write a series of fantasy books involving a young wizard trying to fight an evil wizard.
Last I looked, machines are considered unable to create copyrightable content, so your attempt to compare that to LLMs might not work in court.
> The application was denied because, based on the applicant’s representations in the application, the examiner found that the work contained no human authorship. After a series of administrative appeals, the Office’s Review Board issued a final determination affirming that the work could not be registered because it was made “without any creative contribution from a human actor.”
>Last I looked, machines are considered unable to create copyrightable content, so your attempt to compare that to LLMs might not work in court.
That just means whatever they produce can't be copyrighted, not that they can't produce derivative works. Courts have upheld the right for google to produce thumbnails of copyrighted works, even though the procedure for producing thumbnails is done by a computer and thus can't be copyrighted.
Sure, which is a thing we've sort of agreed on as a society based on human consumption and creativity. Not that we all agree, and not that this agreement is free of influence from megacorps. But the context in which we've enacted copyright law is based on values related to human consumption and creativity.
Maybe we will end up agreeing that we just want to stick with those same laws for machine consumption and creativity. But maybe we won't since they are quite different things.
What if we could buy the books for one human, make the human read all the books, and somehow we would be able to clone this human in a way that they remember the book contents.
I think we should pay authors a fair wage based on some measure of the quality of the content instead of how well the book sells.
There's no reason for Harry Potter for example being 10000 times more valuable than a book on quantum mechanics only because the former is more popular and the latter is on a more obscure topic.