It isn’t quite what you’ve italicized, but make no mistake that’s it’s still a terrible precedent to set. Preliminary injunctions can still be granted by district courts, but now they need to be brought in the form of a class action and all the tediousness that entails. ACLU thankfully had one ready to go it seems just in case of this and it’s been filed already.

Nevertheless, this also enables insane infringement of the first amendment. There is nothing stopping him from declaring membership of a particular political party is illegal, including state parties, and then requiring each state to independently challenge under a restricted class action. It’s ludicrous.

There are many open sourced locally executable free generative models available.

You are agreeing with the post you responded to. This ruling is only about training a model on legally obtained training data. It does not say it is ok to pirate works–if you pirate a work, no matter what you do with the infringing copy you’ve made, you’ve committed copyright infringement. It does not talk about model outputs, which is a very nuanced issue and likely to fall along similar analyses as music copyright imo. It only talks about whether training a model is intrinsically an infringement of copyright. And it isn’t because anything else is insane and be functionally impossible to differentiate from learning a writing technique by reading a book you bought from an author. Even a model that has overfit training data, it is in no way recognizable to any particular training datum. It’s hyperdimensioned matrix of numbers defining relationships between features and relationships between relationships.