[freejazz]

>Yes "deduced" makes more sense, though I guess the code was not really the point. I really should have said the backend functionality is being reproduced. As copyright doesn't protect functionality, the closest proxy we had was the code itself, and now that is meaningless.

But is was only ever so meaningful because as you point out, copyright does not protect functionality.

> I haven't followed too closely, but the ruling on AI art seems to leave the door open for "significant human creative input" like "editing, arrangement." This leaves room for photography, but can also be covered by "architecture, followed by iterative prompting and potentially manual editing to refine the code", which is still needed for any non-trivial AI-generated code.

I don't think this kind of analogizing does anyone any benefits tbh.

>Not a lawyer, but I've seen tons of such issued patents out there, and many have even been upheld in lawsuits. §101 is often trivially bypassed adding "computer readable media" or some "non-abstract side-effect" language to claims. Like, one pattern of claims is "A method of - algorithm - algorithm - algorithm - show something to the user / write to a DB / transmit a message / etc."

I can't agree with this observation, unfortunately.

[keeda]

Generally my concern is copyright was an imperfect but reasonable way of protecting the value provided by code, but that is being undermined.

> I can't agree with this observation, unfortunately.

Interesting, I don't mean to impose, but I'm curious as to how things have changed... could you point to a representative case (maybe eg a patentlyo article) that I could look at?