[cmiles74]

This strikes me as a weak example, I think it's clear that it's way too cumbersome to read an entire novel by asking an LLM to dictate it.

IMHO, a better example would be the AI generated summaries provided by Google. Often these summaries have sufficient information and detail that people do not read the source article. The authors aren't getting paid (perhaps through on-page ads, which are not viewed) and then go out of business.

This strikes me as a good fit for the tax-on-cassette metaphor.

[bonoboTP]

It's not a copyright violation to summarize (in different words).

[Fluorescence]

The impact of machinary forces re-evaluation of any concepts defined in terms of human capability because scale/automation changes their nature.

Just as duplicating a fragment can be legal, duplicating any fragment on demand is not. Rephrasing a passage might be legal, but rephrasing any passage on demand might not.

[bonoboTP]

That's reasonable. This would require broader and deeper thought and discussion apart from the strict legal debate. As in, what is the public interest here? What kinds of rules would bring social good? Etc. What should the law facilitate and what should it limit to achieve that? The problem is, that we really don't know how things will play out, we have no long-term experience with these things yet. So it's all very speculative.

[cmiles74]

A quick Google search will reveal that this not the case. Summaries of books or movies have no particular legal protection and the authors of those summaries may be sued by the owners of that content.

https://1minutebook.com/are-book-summaries-legal/

Fair use is a defense often cited in those cases but it's just that: a defense. Cliff Notes are often cited here but they actually license the content in many cases.

[bonoboTP]

I mean, have you actually read the text at the link you provided? Or just remembered something, googled quickly and sent a random hit without reading it? The quotes under "What do lawyers say? Listen to what a several Intellectual Property Lawyers are saying on “Are book summaries legal?”:" certainly seem to be closer to what I was claiming.

> If you want to write a summary of any novel, without quoting from it, you are free to do it

> Copyright does not protect ideas, only a particular expression of those ideas

> You would likely get in trouble only if your summary contained long excerpts directly from the book

> As long as you do not quote directly from the book, or copy any of the content, then writing a unique summary is not illegal. You can mention the title, you can even quote sentences from the book as long as they are cited, you just can’t reproduce chunks of the content

etc

(I'm also not sure whether this article is just blogspam or itself AI generated)