The legal world tends to be less interested in these kind of logical gotchas than engineering types would like. I don't see a judge caring about that brain framing at all.

Not to mention, if your brain starts outputting Microsoft copyright code, they're going to sue the shit out of you and win, so I'm not sure how that would help even so.

So if I read the windows explorer source code, then later produced a line for line copy (without referring back to the source). Microsoft couldn't sue me?

> The brain is also just a "complex math program".

This is not a fact.

It might be. If your brain generated verbatim someone's code without following its license, you would also break copyright, wouldn't you?

> The brain is also just a "complex math program"

Source?

Somewhere in the complex math is the origin of whatever it is in intellectual property that we deem worthy of protection. Because we are humans, we take the complex math done by human brains as worthy of protection by fiat. When a painter paints a tree, we assign the property interest in the painting to the human painter, not the tree, notwithstanding that the tree made an essential contribution to the content. The whole point is to protect the interests of humans (to give them an incentive to work). There is no other reason to even entertain the concept of "property".

Also, to pile on, if I use my brain to read GPL source code and then type it in again on my own, I'm pretty sure I'm guilty of violating copyright.

So how and why do we solve the halting problem?

No it's actually not.