Agree. I believe I acknowledged that in my last sentence.
My point is a frivolous claim is a thing , and someone bringing a claim must suffice a basic level of evidence to even proceed. Indeed, as you say, "judgement" is at a lower final standard in a civil suit.
I don't think this is frivolous. If you publish a song that includes part of my song, that's good evidence that you copied my song.
Well, disagree but that's fine
I think proving the actual content is present in the song is more challenging, then it gets into the murk of "inspired by/influenced by" etc
In the end, these groups probably did edit literally include the songs in the training set, and are in violation.
Agree. I believe I acknowledged that in my last sentence.
My point is a frivolous claim is a thing , and someone bringing a claim must suffice a basic level of evidence to even proceed. Indeed, as you say, "judgement" is at a lower final standard in a civil suit.
I don't think this is frivolous. If you publish a song that includes part of my song, that's good evidence that you copied my song.
Well, disagree but that's fine
I think proving the actual content is present in the song is more challenging, then it gets into the murk of "inspired by/influenced by" etc
In the end, these groups probably did edit literally include the songs in the training set, and are in violation.