That's a weird thing to say in response to someone saying "the text was rewritten, so it's not actually a copy"
replyThe law cares about the process you took to get something, not just the final output. Stealing something and then changing some stuff to try to make it not look identical doesn't invalidate the fact that you stole it. I can't download someone's song, strip out the bass line and record my own, and then pass off the new song combining the old music with my bass recording as an original song.
replyI don't know whether that's what happened here or claim to know exactly what the constraints of IP law for this specific instance are, but "some stuff was changed" does not necessarily seem sufficient as a defense in general. Depending on the exact type of IP law that covers this there are questions like whether the changes were substantial enough to make it an original work or whether the way that the old stuff was used constitutes fair use.
Are you familiar with "Weird Al Yankovic"?
replyOn the first screen, the only "rewriting" done was s/dataroom/Room/g.
replyAnd the fixed version of that screen (a few tweets later), simply removes the copied text.
replyWhich goes to show there was never any original work to fallback to.
"See, if I remove the detailed descriptions - and the LLM regurgitated the rest - nothing will have been copied."
Some people really want to defend "build me a copy of thing because I don't like the license" to be acceptable behavior.
You are intentionally misrepresenting my comment. I explained that it was not verbatim which refers to an exact copy.
replyWeird that you don't mind misrepresenting that intention of mine. Or are you under the impression that you have a telepathic insight into the minds of others?
replyI thought it was a pedantic remark on the use of the word "verbatim"
reply