[Ajedi32]

Interestingly, almost the entirety of the judge's opinion seems to be focused on the question of whether the translated notes are subject to copyright. It seems to completely ignore the question of whether training an AI on copyrighted material constitutes making a copy of that work in the first place. Am I missing something?

The judge does note that no copyrighted material was distributed to users, because the AI doesn't output that information:

> There is no factual dispute: Ross’s output to an end user does not include a West headnote. What matters is not “the amount and substantiality of the portion used in making a copy, but rather the amount and substantiality of what is thereby made accessible to a public for which it may serve as a competing substitute.” Authors Guild, 804 F.3d at 222 (internal quotation marks omitted). Because Ross did not make West headnotes available to the public, Ross benefits from factor three.

But he only does so as part of an analysis of whether there's a valid fair use defense for Ross's copying of the head notes, ignoring the obvious (to me) point that if no copyrighted material was distributed to end users, how can this even be a violation of copyright in the first place?

[unyttigfjelltol]

Ross evidently copied and used the text himself. It's like Ross creating an unauthorized volume of West's books, perhaps with a twist.

Obscurity ≠ legal compliance.

[Ajedi32]

So the use of AI actually has nothing to do with the ruling here? This is just about the fact that Ross made one local copy of the notes and never distributed it?

[brookst]

How would training on copyrighted material be infringement in a way that merely producing the training material (but not iterating through training) would not be?