The comments seem to misunderstand copyright. Copyright protects a literal work product from unauthorized duplication and nothing else. Even then there are numerous exceptions like fair use and personal backups.
Copyright does not restrict reading a book or watching a movie. Copyright also does not restrict access to a work. It only restricts duplication without express authorization. As for computer data the restricted duplication typically refers to dedicated storage, such as storage on disk as opposed to storage in CPU cache.
When Viacom sued YouTube for $1.6 billion they were trying to halt the public from accessing their content on YouTube. They only sued YouTube, not YouTube users, and only because YouTube stored Viacom IP without permission.
> When Viacom sued YouTube for $1.6 billion they were trying to halt the public from accessing their content on YouTube. They only sued YouTube, not YouTube users, and only because YouTube stored Viacom IP without permission.
Now do these steps for OpenAI instead of YouTube. Only OpenAI doesn't let users upload content, and instead scraped the content for themselves.
From the article it sounds like the plaintiffs were alleging that ChatGPT is effectively doing unauthorized duplication when it serves results that are extremely similar or identical to the plaintiff's code. They aren't just alleging that reading their code = infringement like you seem to imply.
Copyright does not restrict reading a book or watching a movie. Copyright also does not restrict access to a work. It only restricts duplication without express authorization. As for computer data the restricted duplication typically refers to dedicated storage, such as storage on disk as opposed to storage in CPU cache.
When Viacom sued YouTube for $1.6 billion they were trying to halt the public from accessing their content on YouTube. They only sued YouTube, not YouTube users, and only because YouTube stored Viacom IP without permission.