Ha, okay we can shift away from the cases if you like. There really aren’t any that apply anyway.

I think the one getting confused, is the one who:

• Said it’s different because it’s not human without actually providing any reasoning behind that logic.
• Said it was essentially copy and paste, despite the content being new and unique.
• Said it would be illegal if human, despite your inability to provide relevant case law.

You keep spitting out reasons, without backing up your claims. And when challenged on them you either ignore them, or spit out a new reason.

So what will it be, are you going to actually articulate your arguments beyond surface level, or are you going to throw out some back handed comment while continuing to downvote me the second you see I replied?