“This ruling does not stand for the proposition that Meta’s use of copyrighted materials to train its language models is lawful,” Chhabria said. “It stands only for the proposition that these plaintiffs made the wrong arguments and failed to develop a record in support of the right one.”
Well, no. If I sue you for defamation and provide evidence that you kick puppies for fun. The ruling doesn’t prove that kicking puppies for fun is ok or that you didn’t commit defamation, just that I have a bad lawyer.
Here’s an article about the case in question.
Still quite a bullshit ruling.
Well, no. If I sue you for defamation and provide evidence that you kick puppies for fun. The ruling doesn’t prove that kicking puppies for fun is ok or that you didn’t commit defamation, just that I have a bad lawyer.
It’s still bullshit.
Would you prefer that judges rule however they prefer even with no evidence to support the ruling was presented?
I’d prefer that you understood what “bullshit” means
And I prefer that you did but alas
“No U,” eh?
Precisely. I don’t know why you expect replies above the kindergarden level when your comments are kindergarden level.