US Copyright Office found AI companies sometimes breach copyright. Next day its boss was fired The head of the US Copyright Office has reportedly been fired, the day after agency concluded that builders of AI models use of copyrighted material went beyond existing doctrines of fair use. The office’s opinion on fair use came in a draft of the third part of its report on copyright and artificial intelligence. The first …
Truth hurts, doesn't it, downvoter? Take a look at all the rights being suppressed south of the Canadian border, all the people being illegally arrested or detained, including visitors to your country who never were any "threat" in the first place.
You've FINISHED the job of turning into a paranoid shithole. You STARTED the job as soon as 9/11 happened and you started parking paramilitary "police officers" all over the nation.
Now you're so paranoid about even the media and reporters that you'd rather believe a con-man's outright and easily disproven lies, even though it has cost you your international reputation, your trade partners, your security agreements, and untold billions in withdrawn purchases from around the world. "Making America Grotesquely Anti-democratic."
Mark my words: in 20 years, those red MAGA hats will be looked on with all the "love" that KKK robes and Nazi paraphanalia from Germany are today...
"putting inappropriate books in the library for children"
The Library of Congress is a copyright library, i.e. it has to be supplied with a copy of every single book that is published in the US.
Has some numpty simply seen a 'woke' book on their inventory list and decided that they are promoting 'wokeness' by doing their actual job?
Answers on a postage stamp since 'Yes' will easily fit there.
The actual answer is "no". They're just so stupid and ignorant that they think the Library of Congress is a lending library with a children's section. Probably because they haven't set foot in a library since they were children themselves.
Just because you can doesn’t mean that you’re allowed to. Sometimes an article is free for you to read, but not for you to replicate (perhaps with the advertising stripped off). You need to read and understand the terms of the license. Besides, the article (or book, or anything else) might be scraped from a piracy site - and there’s absolutely no excuse whatsoever for that.
If I were to leave my bicycle unlocked outside a shop whilst I pop in quickly to grab a drink, that doesn’t mean you’re allowed to grab it and do a runner. If a greengrocer has a display of fruit and veg outside their shop that doesn’t mean that you can pinch an apple.
No, and if the license sneakily says you're not allowed to read it after you've read it, that's a reasonable excuse. But this is not that. This is being allowed to copy and use it as you like, which is when you have to look for the license. If you didn't know that, this is your official notice. Not everything you can read is free for unlimited and unrestricted use.
We have to agree to disagree. The onus is on you to present me with a license so I can act acordingly. I don't have to search through your entire site to find it (if there's such a license provided).
I know, I know, if you put up an unskipabble license many bots will not index your site and you can't make money from advertising. Tough titty, but you can't have the cake and it it, right?
Tell you what. Try that argument in a court. When you are convicted, that will prove how much your opinion matters when there is a law that says these things.
There is code I want to use. I have access to it; somebody posted it. It is copyrighted to a company who has not released it as open source. Guess what will happen if I try to use it for commercial purposes? Maybe they won't notice, in which case I'm fine. Maybe they will, in which case I can be sued. The fact that it's online, whether they intended it or someone posted it illegally (it's unclear) makes no difference at all. no matter how much I might want that to make a difference, it doesn't. Your opinion doesn't matter because this is about facts.
"The onus is on you to present me with a license so I can act acordingly."
Rubbish. Copyright is inherent in the creation of the work according to the law. The presumption is ALWAYS that a work is copyrighted unless specified otherwise. It's the entire basis of the Berne Convention which even the USA, however deliberately, has signed up to. If you post your work on someone elses server, you may have agreed to their T&Cs, which assign many, or even most of the rights the them, but just making it accessible to hoi polloi does not give anyone else the right to copy and use it themselves. This argument was settled when photocopiers became easily accessible. Books etc usually have a copyright notice informing the reader they may not copy all or part of the works within, but that is only a reminder and is not legally required because the law already has the "licence" codified. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, even if some people do need a notice on the coffee cup warning them the contents may be a bit warm.
"If a greengrocer has a display of fruit and veg outside their shop that doesn’t mean that you can pinch an apple."
Good analogy, and of course you're correct. If I reproduce the site content, be it in a book, website or anywhere else, I'm infringing the author's copyright, no argument about that, particularly if there is something in the page footer that forbids that
But suppose I pass by that greengrocer and take a picture of his apples, which I then sell for lots of money. I don't owe the greengrocer a penny. Suppose I count his apples (without handling his merchandise, of course), and amalgamate the results into the results from thousands of other greengrocers, which I then use commercially. Again, I don't owe the greengrocer a penny. The fact that he has left his merchandise in a public place means that he cannot stop the public taking pictures of it for their own gains in the same way that he could if it were displayed in his shop.
The same applies to web content. Reproducing it without permission is not acceptable, and nor should it be. But analysing that content, for any purpose whatsoever, is not the same thing. I cannot see how that could possibly infringe copyright. That said, if the site adds some kind of "not for use by AI" notice in the page footer, that should be enough to disallow any such analysis. If a site goes to those lengths then the AI bots should respect it; if not, then as long as they're not reproducing the content verbatim, I don't see a problem.
>But analysing that content, for any purpose whatsoever, is not the same thing. I cannot see how that could possibly infringe copyright.
But that's not how it works. Fair use doctrine is a blacklist, not a whitelist. If something is undefined because it's a new activity that doesn't resemble other allowed activities, then it's disallowed by default.
And no, LLM training does not look like reading at all.
If someone steals your bike, you no longer have your bike.
If someone steals an apple, the shop no longer has an apple.
If someone copies your bike, you still have your bike and perse can enjoy their copy too.
If someone copies an apple, the shop still has the apple and perse can enjoy their copy too.
Alas, there are no bike or apple copiers.
When it comes to works under proprietary licenses, it would be moral (although not perfectly so) to ignore such restrictions and share such works anyway, but that would be illegal.
Works under free licenses can be used, modified and/or shared, even commercially perfectly morally and also fully legally - many people and companies profit from free works via the legitimate business activities of sale of the original copies or selling support.
What LLM companies are doing is scraping works under free and proprietary licenses alike, removing the licenses and selling combined copies of the input with proprietary software and SaaSS - which is clearly an immoral act (as free works are being rendered nonfree) and is also an act of copyright infringement (although companies usually get away with it).
If its out there on the web, its FREE AND AVAILABLE for anyone to use how they like!
Err no, and that's the actual legal position.
I have a web site I put together with information that was (at the time) hard to get hold of. I did it to help others with their DIY efforts. Yes, you are free to read it for nothing, but not "use how you like". There is clearly on each page a notice that it's copyright to myself so anything beyond personal use and legally recognised fair use would be illegal. Also the terms of use explicitly prohibit ANY commercial use of the information - so someone scraping it to feed an AI model is explicitly a breach of copyright.
And the USA is a signatory to the Bern convention which required the country enact similar rules. Even if Trump decided that was "inconvenient", he'd soon be put in his place since withdrawing from the Bern convention would make US copyright unenforceable abrod, and that would kill their software industry, their film/entertainment industry, and a few others as well.
I think you misunderstood the article. Just because "something is out there" does not mean it is free to be used others.
Let's put some context on this, you create some material, say technical text and earn your living g frome selling it. It is in copyright and may have licenseing associated with the contents.
Someone comes along and sucks the pdf up then gives it away.
You now don't have any money!
The actions of a facist dictatorship, and this is merely another facet. But the Trump shills, Putinistas and Faragists all seem very silent on these topics. It’s as if they realise that these actions are beyond the pale, they’re too obviously indefensible. But they also realise that there’s a very real possibility that they don’t need to comment. It’s entirely possible that the US is now too far gone, the machinery of democracy is too far dismantled, for there ever to be a fair election again. So they don’t need to say anything at all.
If, by a miracle, a centrist government does get into power again in the US then it will need to do so on a mandate of restructuring - it must be written into the constitution, for example, that the Supreme Court is non-partisan (and therefore made up equally of judges from across the political spectrum, not just whoever the president fancies will give him carte blanche). Some serious thought needs to be given to how to handle political districts (maybe keep them as they are, but weight them according to population density) and the electoral college.
And, for everyone else, before going to the ballot box consider… This is what nationalism and voting for right wing parties gets you. It gets you war, school shootings, social inequality, fiscal instability and a flag and dictator that you have to salute. Is that really what you want?
I don’t know. The US doesn’t have a monopoly on jingoistic stupidity. Look at all the votes for Brexit. Look at how well Reform (in the UK) continues to do, despite the treachery of Nigel Farage. Russia is a different kettle of worms because the dismantling of democracy there is complete - and the only hope for them is if the military gets fed up with Putin. But then one type of tyranny is swapped for another type of tyranny.
"will have a dodgy background that people find out about within 4 seconds of searching X and have to step down."
I think you're living in the past there. Look how hard Cummings tried to pile the dirt on Johnson and how little effect it had. MPs resigning in shame is a forgotten concept. As long as snouts are in the trough (arguably Farage's entire MO), honour will be sidestepped.
Exactly this. Whether what he was saying about De-Pfeffel Johnson was true or not, his credibility was fatally injured by his "eye test during Covid" shenanigans, which made it all look an awful lot like sour grapes, and thus easier to dismiss.
As it happens, the whole lot of 'em would appear to be as corrupt as each other, and any rational person never trusted them to begin with. An awful lot of people don't bother to actually look at what politicians are up to, and vote with their guts anyway, which is why we've got all this stuff with scapegoating immigrants for the decades-long failings of neoliberal economics and end-stage capitalism. It's much easier for the exceedingly well-funded to point the blame at the have-nots than it is for anyone to point out that those well-funded people living in what amount to palaces might be to blame for the massive wealth inequality that this system breeds.
" And a bunch of others will have a dodgy background that people find out about within 4 seconds of searching X" that's already happening, weird how they all seem to have slipped by the most stringent vetting of any party and been exposed by a simple Google or X search, it's almost as if Farage was wearing incendiary pants
Good news, everyone:
Durham: Reform councillor resigns one week after election
Nottinghamshire: Reform councillor steps down after a week
Bearing in mind the extent to which Reform have been making a big thing about cutting out waste of taxpayers money, those resignations now mean a fresh election has to be held to select their replacements. This will cost those Councils thousands of pounds. Well done Reform - you got the financial savings off to a really great start!
"I fully expect a series of Reform resignations fairly soon"
I believe a small number, 3 or 4, have already done so at Durham County Council because they were council employees. It's specifically in the T&Cs when standing as a candidate the one MUST NOT be an employee of the council you are standing for. And I don;t think you can keep the post by resigning the job after the fact because it's worded such that a council employee may not stand in the election. Nothing about winning and then resigning the employment afterwards. Clearly they didn't read what they were signing, so it's probably a good thing that people like that have had to resign. I'd like to think that elected officials were at least capable of reading the "contract" before standing.
Look at how well Reform (in the UK) continues to do
But how much of that is from people who actually want to see Farage in No. 10, rather than just using him as a protest? Look at his past efforts in UKIP and the Brexit party, once they'd achieved their protest aims their votes vanished at the next election.
Starmer won his "landslide" at the last election despite having fewer total votes than Corbyn managed against Boris, and yet Boris got an 80-seat majority in that election. The big Reform votes recently have been much more a reaction against Sunak and Starmer than any real desire to vote for Farage. In the general election many Tory voters either stayed at home, or voted LibDem/Reform to give Sunak a kicking, knowing fine well that nothing would stop Starmer winning however they voted.
This big problem now is that the longer the Tories take to get the message, and return to the more traditional moderate-right values that have won them elections in the past, the more chance there is that they'll fade away and Reform will be the only right-wing (or just non left/centre) game in town.
Trump didn't win in the US because people wanted him, he won because the Democrats couldn't find a believeable opposition candidate, people weren't prepared to vote for an invisible woman, or a doddery geriatric, so they gave up. Trump would have stood little chance against an opponent like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama at their peak. The same is true of Farage, he's scoring today as the "the rest are useless, might as well try something different" candidate. Of course, if the rest remain useless, he might just win by default.
This big problem now is that the longer the Tories take to get the message, and return to the more traditional moderate-right values that have won them elections in the past, the more chance there is that they'll fade away and Reform will be the only right-wing (or just non left/centre) game in town.
The bigger problem is that Labour have moved over to fill that centre-right position, with their right-wing policies on benefits, taxation, the disabled, and immigration. We have no centre-left party either, and the main problem with the left-wing vote is that it represents a plurailty of non-right-wing opinions, and thus is split. Historically, at any time the Tories have been in power, you only have to add up the vote share that labour, the liberals, and the greens get together to see that this is typically the majority, and that the FPTP system artificially amplifies the political position that can maintain only a single party.
What does this mean for the right-wing vote in this country? It's going to be interesting if the Tories do manage to find even a semi-competent leader, because the right-wing vote is rapidly being split in the way the left-wing vote has been historically.
Of course, any truly representative system of PR would sort all of this out, but expecting the party that wins under FPTP to change the system to favour them less is very much akin to the proverbial turkeys voting for Christmas.
Sounds like adopting the Westminster system plus the AU electoral system of universal suffrage, mandatory preferential voting and taking away all the guns.
Just as likely to become a monarchy with the Queen of Hearts (the "off with his head" one) in charge - at least she would have Trumpty-Dumpty's on the palace gates.
A little Carrollian DoGErel
"Trumpty-Dumpty spat biggly on the law
Trumpty-Dumpty had a great fall
All his yes men and all his whores
Couldn't put Trumpty-Dumpty together† again."
Unsurprisingly no one actually wanted to have his carcass.
† alternatively and perhaps more aptly following Carroll "in his place" (place meaning office.)
I prefer…
Donald the President packed his trunk
And said goodbye to the White House
Off the went with a Trumpetty Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump
The head of the herd was Putin, far far away
He had a sack full of Kompromat
And Donald would have to pay…
therefore made up equally of judges from across the political spectrum, not just whoever the president fancies will give him carte blanche
That's how it used to be, and justices would routinely get near unanimous support regardless of president or party. But republicans were unhappy that judges they nominated weren't hardline conservatives voting reflexively to ban abortion, dump all regulation etc. so they decided to change the game with nominees like Bork (who was not confirmed) and Thomas (who was)
Then McConnell rose to power in the Senate and decided he would use that power to deny Obama any judicial appointments, holding them until a republican was in office to give him more Thomases. With Trump's tariff war likely to toss us into a recession, republicans losing the Senate in the next election is a real possibility. No doubt none of Trump's nominees to the court (at any level) will make it through, as there's no way democrats would stand for anything less than the same tit-for-tat obstructionism Obama endured.
I don't know how you enforce this with the Constitution. How do you make a president only nominate someone who is "non partisan"? How do you prevent a Senate of the other party from rejecting any nomination that president makes, hoping for a "better" nominee when their guy gets in power? Some states have a judicial nominating committee that provides a list of candidates for a governor to choose from, but then you have the same problem just with the membership of that committee. Some states elect judges, but unless we fixed campaign finance first you'll see Elon Musk running a $100 million campaign to get the next Clarence Thomas on the court.
In hindsight you could see the cracks forming in the system over the last 30-35 years, Trump is like a virus taking advantage of a weakened immune system. I agree we need to rethink a lot about the government but we'd need to have a constitutional convention to make the changes needed on the time scale required - and things may end up worse if you have nazis like Elon Musk getting their billions involved in that process.
> "Require a 2/3rds Senate majority for a prospective candidate?"
The risk you run there is that they can't end up agreeing on anyone, so the position remains unfilled, which isn't a desirable outcome.
Maybe offer something a little bit like jury selection, where either side gets a certain number of vetoes, and when those run out (or both sides agree on a given candidate), the last one standing is the new nominated Justice.
You first need to fix your parliament. Ban companies from donating to political campaigns or parties. Put a limit on how much any one person can donate. Put laws in place to prevent one person using multiple relatives/employees/random strangers to donate beyond the accepted amount. With proper penalties for breaches of said rules.
Fix the gerrymandering, such that third parties and independents can win seats federally.
Then when your parliament is fixed, you can start on the courts.
<......."Put a limit on how much any one person can donate.".....>
Or perhaps introduce a similar system to that which we have in the UK - there is a limit imposed on how much each party is allowed to spend on campaigning in the 12 months preceding polling day, and is related to the number of constituencies that they contest - currently just over £54k per constituency), and in addition there is also a separate limit on what each candidate can spend (currently slightly more than £40k, plus an allowance per voter on the electoral roll for that constituency which is measured in pennies!).
This system puts all parties on a more or less equal financial footing and prevents the party/candidate with the most money to spend from having an unfair advantage, and gives smaller parties a fair chance to make their mark.
Quite unlike the US system in which it appears that only people with a vast amount of money can make any headway in a presidential election, and the one with the most money backing them wins.
Not quite the original intention of the election system which is supposed to mean that literally any US citizen can run for President.
Not quite the original intention of the election system which is supposed to mean that literally any US citizen can run for President.
Well, the original intention of the Founding Fathers was that Rich White Men like themselves should be able to a) vote and 2. be elected, but subsequent amendments to the Constitution have resolved that.
Require a 2/3rds Senate majority for a prospective candidate?
That's an even higher bar than currently, which was 60 (to defeat the filibuster) and then 50 (when the filibuster was taken away for Supreme Court appointments) so it will make obstructionism even easier. Why would the democrats allow Trump to appoint a single judge? Why would the republicans have allowed Biden to appoint judges during his term?
We'd slowly see the ranks of judges shrink through attrition as they retired or died, with positions never being filled.
If there was some sort of automated system to fill slots that remain open too long, like promotion from the lower courts, maybe that helps. But only for so long because then the fights over who to appoint to the slots that will move up become the new battleground for the Supreme Court.
The underlying problem here is obvious. The president (executive branch) picking the members of the Supreme Court (judicial branch) in the first place. This breaks the separation of the three branches of government, especially when the executive branch has tendrils into the legislative branch (congress).
Ideally, the President should have no influence over either the Supreme Court or Congress, because without separation of powers, what you have there is a dictatorship.
I'd suggest that senior members of the legal profession should be responsible for appointing members of the Supreme Court, with minimum requirements of experience and track record, and that measures are put in place to remove judges if their decisions can be demonstrated to be consistently incorrect, or if they suffer mental decline. I'd go so far as to say that there should be maximum term lengths as well, not this weird "in power for the rest of your life" bullshit.
Given the power the Supreme Court exercises you would quickly see a ton of potential corruption around that.
In theory that's the best idea, the best qualified people to decide who should be on the highest court are other judges, as well as lawyers who have argued many cases before the Supreme Court. But those people aren't necessarily without their own partisan feelings, which can be amplified by today's echo chamber media or compromised by giving them free luxury RVs.
I'd suggest AI might be able to fill the role someday, if it was trained on the appropriate data. But deciding what training data is "appropriate" to such an AI would be another partisan fight. We could solve gerrymandering overnight by turning redistricting over to a computer program that only looked at maps and population counts without knowing whether given areas are rich/poor white/black urban/rural and so on but those who are advantaged by gerrymandering aren't going to turn over the power they have for something that's non-partisan. And that program wouldn't require AI and could have been written 50 years ago, so fat chance taking anything else out of human hands to make it less partisan.
Simple - you change to the UK system where Judges are chosen by other Judges based on their respect and understanding of the law, and their political independence etc.
Electing Judges by popular vote can only lead to politics, which is not desirable in a judge by any means. And yes, Supreme Court Justices are indirectly elected because they are picked by an elected individual along party lines.
The US system as a whole relies too much on people in positions of power doing the "right thing" because they should, not because they have to. This is also true of the UK system to some extent (for example Judges in the UK for our Supreme Court are in theory chosen by the Prime Minister but they always follow the recommendation of the panel of Judges who choose the nominees, and if they didn't then it's much easier to remove a UK PM than a US President so their party or the opposition would have them out on their ear within a week if they felt aggrieved about it.
Trade marks are a part IP law. If the law is deleted I could put other peoples' trade marks in places they do not want them. I tried thinking of places to put Tesla's trade mark where it would put the company into disrepute. It turns out there is no need to bother as the logos are already on Tesla vehicles and show rooms.
An awful lot of Americans simply do not care about what are to them abstract concepts of civil liberty. As the Eagles put it in 'Desperado'. "And freedom, oh freedom, well that's just some people talking".
There is a huge cultural gap between a college professor in Boston and a farmhand in North Dakota and the idea that somehow everyone will come together in some kind of civil uprising to thwart Trump is simply fanciful. What we are seeing here is, frankly, what an awful lot of people actually wanted. They feel disempowered and disrespected and they really don't give a damn about copyright, AI, or the tech bros, as long as somebody promises them the steel mill ain't gonna close. You cannot map European liberalism onto the American population as a whole, and this is not to even begin to bring the much wider influence of religious fundamentalism in the US into the picture.
Meanwhile back on Airstrip One everyone's become obsessed with achieving some kind of bucolic Green and Pleasant Land where everyone is the same colour and nobody has to endure people gabbling on the train in some foreign language (except rich Japanese tourists, possibly). And it looks like Starmer's only too pleased to pander to this, being clearly a man to whom the aphorism "I have principals. And if you don't like them... well, I have others" couldn't be more apt. Surely it cannot be long before troublesome books in the English syllabus are replaced by things like Conan Doyle's "The White Company" where the yeoman heart of oak British folk triumph over volatile, cowardly garlic munching foreigners.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
I'll agree broadly as an American.
But I quibble on the "farmhand in North Dakota" line. There are few farmhands who vote. There are plenty English speaking farm *owners* who voted for the president to deport their farmhands and they are WELL taken care of here, so much so they have plenty of money to spaff on toys.
A partial list of one local rancher's set up includes rifle-rated body armor and helmets, rifles, hi-spec night vision goggles equivalent or superior to the army issue tubes, ATVs to patrol the property, drones, and "King Ranch" pickups that start at $80k USD.
The dude is rolling in cash, but the way he talks you'd think the feds were in the treeline trying to snatch him off his land and the blue-haired pronoun college people were besieging his property.
>He hasn't noticed he's being ripped off by farm machinery repairs?
No because the crying in the ranching sector is mainly the lease for federal grazing lands per animal per month. Now that Trump has promised to sell all the land to Big Ag and other extraction companies on top of actively fucking them over by shutting down backdoor subsidies for substandard beef.
Now he and some of the other local 'salt of the earth' are trying to agitate the government at state and federal levels into giving them money by funding a "study" that finds the wolves released by a neighboring blue state (CO) and coyotes are causing them losses of potential calves. Logic being the pack of 100 or so wolves 300+ miles away and the coyotes are so massively destructive it stresses out cattle into miscarrying or not fertilizing.
G.K. Chesterton might be a better example than Conan Doyle but incredibly nuanced to fit into a cut and dry argument.
If you must have an empire then all roads will lead to ... and feet from that far flung empire will trek along those roads long after the empire is no more than a faint echo of history.
I think you mean "principles" not "principals", and I seem to remember enjoying "The White Company" when I came across that and the bookshelf of simlar tomes in the local library 60 years ago ... but I've also enjoyed troublesome works such as Peter Wright's Spycatcher and those of Solzhenitsyn (First Circle was stolen from me on a train in Yugoslavia .. but I didn't make a fuss as it was in the days of Tito).
I've had some AI images created that bear a similarity to some of my stuff that's online, but they could probably be fobbed off as "derivative" - maybe that's why ChatGPT and their ilk have a tendency to misspell common words in their graphics renditions.
No contradiction. "Freedom for us to say and do what we want, you don't count"
It's like "freedom of religion" - they spout that when it applies to Christianity, but not any other religion.
And "you are free to protest against pride events, but don't you dare criticise the genocide by the country whose have given us millions. https://www.timesofisrael.com/miriam-adelson-gives-100-million-to-trump-campaign-making-good-on-reported-pledge/
Surely, even a 'true believer' in copyright should acknowledge that what you suggest deprives nobody of anything?
That may be the simplest, least time-consuming, way to obtain a copy to evaluate. Perhaps if you like it, you will pay for it. Maybe, you run a company and decide to negotiate a price for the use of a hundred copies.
In the realm of law-protected IP, caveat emptor carries little weight. Unless a product can be established as 'fit for purpose' before purchase, physical goods can be returned on the grounds of breach of contract.
Woe betide someone seeking reimbursement for software, or an electronic book publication, failing to reach expectation. The same applies to a printed book: unless bought to serve the purpose of a doorstop, the physical incarnation is irrelevant.
@Tubz "I am not a pirate, as the use of copyrighted material doesn’t impact it's market or value, fair use will apply.?"
No, contrary to what AI companies would have us believe, impact on market or value is not the only factor to be considered when determining fair use, there are 4. They are (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107):
(1)the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2)the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3)the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4)the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
To be fair use all four bars have to be crossed not just bar (4).
No rational individual would consider AI to be a reliable or reputable alternative to an authoritative text produced by an expert. So in that sense, they are not competing with or reducing the value of the original. Lots of people may accept AI as 'probably good enough', but that is due to their own low standards and laziness. If they weren't using AI, they would ask for advice on social media or 4chan. That is the level that AI functions at. It isn't good enough to compete with reliable sources.
The clash of the Titans in the USA is hotting up.
Reduced manufacture in the US of physical goods, has made its economy, internal and with regard to international trade, more heavily dependent upon so-called Intellectual Property (IP) than before. Mr Trump's recently stated intention to protect 'Hollywood' from foreign competition, accords with this. Other areas of publishing are immensely influential too.
We are witnessing a battle between two very powerful civilian components of the US economy: electronic technology and copyright dependent rentiers. IP is facing its inevitable 21st century demise, that is, at present, the copyright protected element.
Neither side in the fight is motivated by a principled stand to defend copyright or by the increasingly unassailable arguments as to why copyright is culturally and economically destructive. The winner, undoubtedly the 'tech' side, will be decided by the might of lawyer power, political lobbying, and customary bribery; even AIPAC, which presumably stands for Hollywood, cannot prevail.
Meanwhile, and regardless of events in the US, other nations, especially BRICS, will follow their own best interests.
I’ll take your praise, I’ll take your undying obedience, I’ll laugh as you all die in the ridiculous wars you have in my name (whilst claiming that in some way I care about and love you all). And then I’ll kick sand in your face, and grind you into the dirt, as you sing your gratitude to me.
This is equally true of Donald Trump, or the logical manifestation of the fiction promulgated by the major faiths of this world.
"You keep using that word, somehow I don't think it means what you think it means."
I can find very few citations for the word "prolimitive," but it would appear to relate to setting a future (pro-) temporal limit (-limitive) on an activity.
The problem with using big words to try to make yourself look clever is that, if you use them wrongly, you don't.
The rest of your post was bollocks as well.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
