Generally if someone is clearly in breach of copyright the rights holder will apply to a court to issue an injunction to order that company to cease their activities until a case can be resolved.
Given that has not happened, it seems that from a court’s perspective, it’s not a clear breach of copyright.
If every time what already exists gets used there’s a risk of a massive fine or court case they’ll throw it away.
The game now is to delay the legal process long enough until they’ve built the replacement.
Then they can afford to throw the, essentially faulty, model away.
It’s not at all clear that the current model does breach the law.
If it was a court would have issued an injunction or whatever.
It’s clear from the output that it breaks copyright.
We don’t have to look inside the black box to demand to see the input which caused that output.
To be clear a machine is not responsible for itself. This machine was trained to break copyright.
Generally if someone is clearly in breach of copyright the rights holder will apply to a court to issue an injunction to order that company to cease their activities until a case can be resolved.
Given that has not happened, it seems that from a court’s perspective, it’s not a clear breach of copyright.
The rights holder first considers the size of the payout vs. the cost of legal fees.
Just because they haven’t been sued directly for this doesn’t make it infringement.
Nonsense. If this is copyright the payout will be many billions. They’ve had a year to think about it.
The statute of limitations is much longer than a year. It’s usually around 5.
They can wait, see who’s made the money, then target them for a payout.
A court wouldn’t look favourably on that.
Rights couldn’t have been very b important if you just let it run.
They really don’t care. It can take a lot of time to put a solid case together and you’re better off having a solid case than a quick trial.