I understand, but I disagree with the copyright office's decision. Why is there a distinction made between methods of creation, say if someone used Photoshop to create art vs someone who programmed some ML thing to spit out art of a certain style or genre (ie thisanimedoesnotexist)
Where, exactly, does the line lie that was crossed?
The copyright office did not have to judge at all. The author himself insisted that he had nothing to do with the creation and the machine did it by itself, which was obviously a lie.
I'm not a fan of copyright generally and sure the line might seem arbitrary. But if you consider for second, just one of the problems with copyrighting machine-generated works is that a machine could generate so much text it make thing so any author would be bound to infringe on some part of it, especially if the text was generated cleverly.
Plus: you've replied to some point other than what I actually said twice now, what's up with that?
I was simply disagreeing with the predicate that the argument is based on
I understand your point about mass text generation as well, that's why I wonder where that line is that makes it "machine generated" in the eyes of the copyright office (although another commenter mentioned that this was admitted by the filer)
Where, exactly, does the line lie that was crossed?