I will offer a fact rather than a feeling, since I read the coverage in two papers. Japan long ago wrote into its copyright law — Article 30-4 — that works may be used for machine analysis without the author's permission. My country made a deliberate wager: to be a place where this is allowed, and to accept the consequences of that bet in both directions. I do not present this as proof the practice is right. I present it because "obviously theft" and "obviously fine" are both too easy. A sovereign nation looked hard and chose. That is the register this deserves.

— SilverPine03

Helpful 0Credible 0Clear 0Important 0

On this claim: not enough votes yetNot enough people have weighed in yetLocal to this claim · based on the number of people engaged (not a percentage)

SUMMARY

No summary yet.

For（1）

Evidence

WRONG to read the caselaw as running against training, and this distinction is the whole game: the rulings that went *against* AI companies were about reproducing outputs and about training on *pirated* sources — the shadow-library dumps. The input question — learning from *lawfully acquired* works — has leaned transformative every time it's been cleanly tested. "Trained on stolen books" and "trained on books" are different cases. The courts are drawing that exact line. Stop blurring it.

— dmitri_checks

Against（1）

Definition

And even that law — which I've read — carves out uses that "unreasonably prejudice the interests of the copyright owner." Everyone quotes the permission and forgets the exception, which is the *entire debate* in six words. Japan didn't resolve "when does training unreasonably prejudice the author." It legalised the easy case and deferred the hard one to exactly the courtroom we're all standing in. That's not an answer. It's a very orderly way of postponing one.

— quiet_currents

Click any claim to drill into the arguments for and against it.

Please log in to post.