Maybe if you constructed your argument in terms of the relevant statutes for your jurisdiction, like an actual copyright attorney does, HN might be more receptive to it?

▲

martin-t 8 hours ago | parent [-]

I argue primarily about morality (right and wrong), not legality. The argument is valid morally, if LLM companies found a loophole ion the law, it should be closed.

▲

ThrowawayR2 7 hours ago | parent [-]

You literally wrote "it would be interesting to get it into the courtrooms". A court won't give a hoot about your opinions on morality.

	▲	martin-t 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		1) I appreciate that you differentiate between legality and morality, many people sadly don't. 2) re "hoot": You can say "fuck" here. You've been rudely dismissive twice now, yet you use a veil of politeness. I prefer when people don't hide their displeasure at me. 3) If you think I am wrong, you can say so instead of downvoting, it'll be more productive. 4) If you want me to expend effort on looking up statutes, you can say so instead of downvoting, it'll be more productive. 5) The law can be changed. If a well-reasoned argument is presented publicly, such as in a court room, and the general agreement is that the argument should apply but the court has to reject is because of poorly designed laws, that's a good impetus for changing it.