|
|
|
|
|
by freejazz
353 days ago
|
|
I didn't describe an LLM. Read the thread. I decsribed a particular type of service or machine where the maker would liable as a contributory infringer without directly infringing. That's all. Read my post, I even said "Not saying this is exactly what Suno is doing" Someone responded and said "Why not DAWs, then?" The answer is because a DAW is not that kind of service or machine. >t’s easy to fall back to known concepts to frame new things, but that is not accurate. LLMs do not hold a “banks of copyrighted materials”, As an aside. That's clearly not true in some models given that in a number of the cases, the plaintiffs can recreate their works verbatim. |
|