That experiment isn't close to cutting it; I promise you that machine will never infringe on copyright because it's incapable of that detail.
Just look at that line in the Verge article. It's bad. Now imagine what its shading would look like.
I don't doubt we'll get there eventually, but that's not particularly close.
It is remarkably round though, it killed that part.
> Whether something is copyright infringement is not predicated on the scale that it happens at last time I checked (if you make x copies per day you're fine, but if you hit y (>x) you better watch your legal back).
I'm not arguing that scale makes it legal to do, just that scale can make it impractical to execute.
I view this as a feature of copyright. It's goal is to promote the arts and sciences, and I don't think violations of copyright too small to be worth filing lawsuits for are harming the arts or sciences.
Even winning this lawsuit seems like a Pyrrhic victory. What do they gain? The judgement can't be that high, what kind of damages can the photographer show? The photographer certainly has standing to sue, I just don't understand the end goal here.
Just look at that line in the Verge article. It's bad. Now imagine what its shading would look like.
I don't doubt we'll get there eventually, but that's not particularly close.
It is remarkably round though, it killed that part.
> Whether something is copyright infringement is not predicated on the scale that it happens at last time I checked (if you make x copies per day you're fine, but if you hit y (>x) you better watch your legal back).
I'm not arguing that scale makes it legal to do, just that scale can make it impractical to execute.
I view this as a feature of copyright. It's goal is to promote the arts and sciences, and I don't think violations of copyright too small to be worth filing lawsuits for are harming the arts or sciences.
Even winning this lawsuit seems like a Pyrrhic victory. What do they gain? The judgement can't be that high, what kind of damages can the photographer show? The photographer certainly has standing to sue, I just don't understand the end goal here.