But machines don't do things. People do things, and they use tools/machines to do those things more easily or efficiently.

My apologies - I'm speaking loosely of course. Translate all my claims about machines breaking the law into claims about humans using machine breaking the law.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be pedantic. I was trying to make the point (which I think is in line with your point) that the fact that AI is involved here doesn't make a difference. It is a tool, but the people using the tool are (as always) responsible for the outcome.

The issue is certainly not so simple. But it seems to me, purely theoretically, that the rules don't necessarily have to be the same for living people and non-living machines.

Well - actually - it is pretty simple. For something to be illegal, there must be a law saying it's illegal. There are no laws distinguishing humans from machines in copyright law.

> There are no laws distinguishing humans from machines in copyright law

Correct. Because until very recently there was no need.

AH. So you agree that it's not illegal.

What isn't?

I'm just happy you agree with me.

I don't agree with most of what you've said on this discussion. I couldn't have been clearer about that in my other replies. The only part I did agree on was a hypothetical that hasn't happened.