The users did not access copyright protected data, they can reasonably argue a lack of knowledge of similarities as a defence.
In music that gives you a free pass because a lot of music is similar.
Ed Sheeran made similar music to Marvin Gaye through essentially cultural osmosis of ideas. Robin Thick deliberately took a Marvin Gaye reference and directly copied it.
The legal and moral differences relied on knowledge.
The liability has to fall on who fed the model the data in the first place. The model might be Robin Thick or Ed Sheeran, but given the model has been programmed with the specific intention to create similar work from a collection of references. That puts it plainly in the Robin Thick camp to me.
The AI's intent is programmed and if a human followed that programmed objective, with copyright owned material, that human would be infringing on copyright unless they paid royalties.
If they literally take up more space than everyone else, then they're not paying their fair share unless we charge them more for parking.
It doesn't matter how much you pay for other things. Smokers and drinkers pay more tax on a relative scale, they don't get to take up more space on an airplane unless they buy another seat.
There is an infinite amount of possible values between 0 and 1. But factorially it means measuring a coastline will lead towards infinity the more precise you get.
And up all the values between 0 and 1 with an infinite number of decimal places and you get an infinite value.
Or there's the famous frog jumping half the distance towards a lilly pad, then a quarter, than an eighth. The distance halfs each time so it looks like they'll never make it. An infinitesimally decreasing distance until the frog completes an infinite number of jumps.
Then what most people understand by infinity. There are an infinite number of integers from 0 to infinity. Ultimately this infinity we tend to apply in real world application most often to mean limitless.
These are mathematically different infinities. While all infinity, some infinities have limits.
More like people being called out for blocking roads because there's more of them. If you can't park in a space, park somewhere else.
If parking is difficult as a result, buy a smaller car or accept you're often going to walk further.
The average size of car has risen. That's not automatically something we have to accommodate. The people who bought larger cars always used to live with the consequences and should continue to.
All it is is whether a compound word is common enough.
It starts in speech when the words are repeated next to each other often enough they start being thought of as one word. But can't be shortened.
If, in context, every time we said farmer we ended up saying dirt farmer. It would become compound. But in reality we'd just end up saying "farmer" when the context makes it clear. You'll see this in writing about farming all the time, initially stating the type of farmer then just saying farmer.
Flag pole started out separately, but in some conversations it would become one object. Every time we talked about the flag pole it would be one word, flagpole. But saying just "pole" would be ambiguous. There are other poles around.
It trends towards shortness, if context allows us to drop a word altogether we will, if it doesn't it gets compounded abbreviated.
No formal rule for this at all, but that's the way it happens. People try to say things more efficiently without confusing meaning.
They need to die. Not be selectively enforced for everyone except those with a multi billion dollar computational model.
Everyone will have the same copyright laws except Microsoft and Google at this rate. That's worse than where we are now.