[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> The person you replied to derailed the conversation by misconstruing an analogy.

Curious why you say this. They seem to have made the copyright infringement analogous to theft and I addressed that directly in the comment.

[fc417fc802]

It was an analogy, ie a comparison of the differences between pairs. The relevant bit then is the damages suffered by the party stolen from. If you fail to pursue when the damages are small or nonexistent (image classifiers, employee stealing a single apple, individual reproduction for personal use) why should that undermine a case you bring when the damages become noticeable (generative models, employee stealing 500 lbs of apples, bulk reproduction for commercial sale)?

[furyofantares]

This is precisely where the analogy breaks down. The victim suffers damages in any theft, independent of any value the perpetrator gains. Damages due to copyright infringement don't work this way. Copyright exists to motivate the creation of valuable works; damages for copyright are an invented thing meant to support this.

[fc417fc802]

That would only be a relevant distinction if the discussion were specifically about realized damages. It is not.

The discussion is about whether or not ignoring something that is of little consequence to you diminishes a later case you might bring when something substantially similar causes you noticeable problems. The question at hand had nothing to do with damages due to piracy (direct, perceived, hypothetical, legal fiction, or otherwise).

It's confusing because the basis for the legal claim is damages due to piracy and the size of that claim probably hasn't shifted all that much. But the motivating interest is not the damages. It is the impact of the thing on their employment. That impact was not present before so no one was inclined to pursue a protracted uphill battle.

[furyofantares]

Oh, I agree with all that, I had sort of ignored the middle post in this chain.