Microsoft has been super litigious in the past when it came to copyright violation starting all the way back with Bill Gates' letter in Byte magazine about those pesky pirates. To see them do this makes pirating MS software fair game from here on. They could have asked nicely, instead they just took.
It is. Laws are adapted based on widespread technological capabilities and progress.
As an example, if it is easy to create real voice or signature using AI models - they should no longer be considered effective evidence for contractual reason instead of enforcing that it is illegal to forge it. That is not going to work.
Your example is not good. Speeding is not a technical innovation that require any fundamental change. It is enforced in automated fashion and it is beneficial for the safety of public at large if reasonably implemented.
All laws are made in interest of someone.
Does the copyright apply to AI models since they are out of scope and weren't widespread when it came into force?
Does the proposed benefit in the original law apply in practice?
Are they more beneficial than the progress allowed by AI models who use them as training data?
Is the copyright law practically enforceable on output generated by AI models?
Copyright law is what it is today. Like it or not doesn't really matter. And yes, copyright law is practically enforceable, regardless of how copyright is broken. That's what the Berne Convention is all about.
Microsoft has been super litigious in the past when it came to copyright violation starting all the way back with Bill Gates' letter in Byte magazine about those pesky pirates. To see them do this makes pirating MS software fair game from here on. They could have asked nicely, instead they just took.