[DiapDealer]

I also hope the case goes nowhere. A "win" would only open things up for copyright holders to sue any one for studying authors, or genres (without "permission") and using what they learned to write their own works that are influenced by what they read.

I know you like to hang your hat on the differences between machine "training" and human "influence/study" But I don't think those differences amount to actual legal distinctions. Could be wrong, but I don't believe I am.

If they had any real evidence that ChatGPT used pirated copies of works for its training, then that should be the legal issue that should be being pursued. Not the silly, overreaching accusation of merely accessing copyrighted works in order to train a system to write its own fiction. Humans have done that for centuries.

I don't see any legal relevance in the difference between influence/knowledge being gained by words being scraped by machine "eyes" and influence/knowledge being gained by words being scraped by human eyes.

Time will tell.