Ruling in favor of copyright will call into question search engines and the like as well.
Do you think Bing or Google are going to negotiate copying rights with the world's websites?
LLMs are proving that intellectual property has a bunch of holes in it. It's been unstable ground to defend since day one. Upon what principle should we believe that one can own an idea and all performances or derivatives of it? Patents and trademarks haven't really helped as much as they were expected to. Only recently did works as far back as 1920 enter the public domain. Additionally, some LLMs gobble up source code with mixed licensing structures. How is that to be handled?
Patents are about monopolies to produce something to hit a market, with the trade-off of showing everyone how it's made.
Trademarks just allow you to defend your name(s).
Copyright prevents other people from making money off of your work. For the rest of your life, plus 75 years.
Something is broken here, alright. While we're discussing intellectual property, what about one's DNA? Is it not a performance of biology? How about your fingerprint? Fingerprints are semi-unique, so it's also a performance mark. We've seen celebrities sue for the use of their likeness, so that's recognized to some degree as well. At what point will data subjects get rights, so that when another Equifax happens, they can be bankrupted and prevented from harming the public again?
Most are rhetorical, of course, but I really think generative language models are disrupting a lot of things we used to take for granted, and our models of creatorship are not refined enough to account for digital or statistical copying. Intellectual property as a concept is not compatible with a digital future.