> In most circumstances you can't mass distribute completely identical, non transformative, non fair use copies of large portions other people's copyrighted works
That law was defined long before there was a capability to launder authorship at scale in the way being discussed. The law does not account for this novel capability.
The law is intended to protect IP, which promotes innovation and creativity by creating relevant incentives. If that was the intention of the law, and it is not interpreted in that way, it ought to be revised for it to continue to serve those objectives.
> Evidence that I am right: you are right now commenting on a thread where a judge threw out all the copyright claims.
This only shows that you read the headline. It does not show that you (or the judge) are correct about the core issue.
I suppose it depends on the country. I heard the US is a somewhat unusual culture where concerns usually encoded in legislation in other countries instead battle it out in courts.
That law was defined long before there was a capability to launder authorship at scale in the way being discussed. The law does not account for this novel capability.
The law is intended to protect IP, which promotes innovation and creativity by creating relevant incentives. If that was the intention of the law, and it is not interpreted in that way, it ought to be revised for it to continue to serve those objectives.
> Evidence that I am right: you are right now commenting on a thread where a judge threw out all the copyright claims.
This only shows that you read the headline. It does not show that you (or the judge) are correct about the core issue.