As long as a standard “unblessed” usb-c cable will work fully with the phone it’s non-issue.
Its a service.
If only there was some kind of entity representing you the people, pooling your money to help the unfortunate…
“Generative” is not a thing in copyright law.
You regard them as different to tools like Word. That does not exist in the law.
When you originally posted that they OpenAI should be on the hook I thought you meant they were the ones commiting copyright infringement. Not that they would violate private contracts with their customers.
Private agreements is not my business.
There is however a push by both sides to settle this in law. Whatever happens will affect everyone.
Yes they do.
Which is why you want an agreement to make them liable for copyright infringement (plagiarism is not a crime itself).
You would have to pay for distributing copyright infringing material whether created by AI or humans or just straight up copied.
I don’t care if AI will be used,commercially or otherwise.
I am worried about further limitations being placed upon the general public (not “creatives”/publishers/AI corps) either by reinterpretation of existing laws, amendment of existing laws or legislation of brand new rights (for copyright holders/creators, not the general public).
I don’t even care who wins, the “creatives” or tech/AI, just that we don’t get further shafted.
You need a very specific prompt to make a copy. Even to just be similar enough you have to put the proper input and try a lot of repetitions.
That’s why the right holders are going after the training which included copying by the AI corpos.
In your dream land right holders could just prompt the AI till it spit something close to their work and sue the AI corp for that. Repeat as needed ; infinite money glitch.
Obviously it doesn’t work that way.
Nope. The output is based on the users input in both cases.
It’s not stealing, its not even ‘piracy’ which also is not stealing.
Copyright laws need to be scaled back, to not criminalize socially accepted behavior, not expand.
Operating system have been used to commit copyright infringement much more effectively and massively by copying copyrighted material verbatim.
OS vendors are not liable, the people who make and distribute the copies are. The same applies for Word processors, image editors etc.
You are for a massive expansion on the scope of copyright limiting the freedoms of the general public not just AI corps or tech corps.
It’s not a breach of copyright or other IP law not to cite sources on your paper.
Getting your paper rejected for lacking sources is also not infringing in your freedom. Being forced to pay damages and delete your paper from any public space would be infringement of your freedom.
The decision is that even lending out ebooks against owned copies is illegal
What the IA may be illegal but is certainly not wrong.
I remember an Apple fanboy arguing that this made things better!
You don’t have to deal with digital ownership bullshit with existing physical media because some people broke the DRM.
The worst development for end users would be a normalization of physical media and new or (“updated”) physical formats and players.
With brand new DRM and more tightly controlled playback devices.
I don’t know about Italian but I can tell you Greek Americans plainly can’t speak Greek.
Same with ‘ethnic’ cuisine, they don’t put lettuce in “Greek” salad because that’s how it was originally but because that’s what was available and accepted in the US.
Its also far more likely that very regional or even just family traditions/customs/recipes got attributed to whole nations rather than an elite managing to wipe it out from the original group.
Most fruits are low calorie with a lot of them having less than 100 kcal per 100g. There are some exceptions such as Avocado (due to fat content actually) and dates as well dried fruit (prunes at 300/100g vs plums at 45/100g).
Strawberries, cherries, apples, figs, bananas all are below 100kcal/100g. Obviously some are better at filing you up than others.
They would drop tactical nukes on NATO forces.
It’s never going to happen anyways.
Much more diverse opinions mainly because there are more non-Americans percentage wise.
Rofl.
The vast majority of small business do run on Home have no clue wtf a domain is. Probably share files via google drive rather than a file server.
Banana Mickey mouse republic
What makes the US have more free speech?
Legally all EU countries have freedom of expression enshrined in their constitutions.
Culturally I find Americans blind to any non governmental censorship. Since it’s legal its OK.I believe not allowing private companies to censor people is absurdly considered a violation of free speech.
There are obvious results as well: the US is way less politically diverse.