Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some AI
Once again it false or inaccurate terminology I have a problem with more than anything.
Parading “free as in freedom” for licensing that doesn’t offer complete freedom… bugs me.
Though that’s not my point. I was trying to understand the relationship between A and B.
Now o do.
Thanks for explaining.
But as far as my claim “ and your claim that DVD didn't affect sales is laughable”
There’s more than just a new format at play here. It’s what Hollywood chose to support. Again, DVHS/Dtheatre was vastly superior in playback quality, and cost less to produce for distribution.
When you couldn’t get the latest film you wanted on vhs you bit the bullet so to speak. Buy a DVD player and start the transition.
It’s ultimately distributors that will chose where the industry goes.
At this point, shame, hypocrisy and irony have all lost their meaning with the GQP.
They will say and do whatever it is that they feel will get them ahead politically, even if they said and did something completely opposite earlier that same day.
They just don't seem to care about morals and ethics any longer and exist only to rile up their base of rubes to squeeze out of them as much money as possible.
The worst part about it, almost half the country doesn't give a shit, as long as it appears they are "owning the libs" they will gladly keep coughing up their hard earned cash.
If you're going to compare reporters with legislators, the main difference is that some reporters can fool some of the people some of the time, whereas legislators can fool only themselves.
Secondary to that, reporters have a steady income, whereas legislators receive a varying amount over time, depending on which lobbyists need what legislation to be passed (or opposed).
I'd rather have a reporter making laws for me, instead of a legislator that bought his/her way into the seat of power. At least reporters have seen what's really happening in the streets of America, to people from all walks of life. Legislators?
(I'll admit that there have been some exceptions to my thoughts on legislators, but they've been too few and much too far between.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this actually a good thing?
Thing is, as I said, it’s rather rare to find a longer-term location with zero possibility of changing cable or internet options through some method.
I also find it ironic you’d Focus on “ If he wants complete control, all he has to do is not open up accommodation to the public” here but throw opposing opinions out the window on social media.
The way the courts have justified this is by effectively saying the copyright is on the framing of the shot -- the "creative" choices is where to point the camera to frame the image or video...
Back in 2004, it was the blinking lights that triggered the 'check engine light'. The automakers were claiming that to be a trade secret and that no independent repair shop should have them. Which in turn gave them the bulk of repairs while the independents were starting to close down because they couldn't properly diagnose.
This has always been the dealership's wet dream. To shovel all repairs to their more expensive services. Since their services are always what the traffic will bear or more, they are always pretty much over priced.
There will again come up this sort of thing in the future as they again try to shoehorn in the repairs by locking them down to where only the dealership will be able to repair it. This is twice now this has happened that I am aware of.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some AI generated works shouldn't be pub
The issue here is Copilot occasionally spitting out copylefted code. If a court were to decide that that code should be public domain because it is the output of an AI, then that copyleft license would be nullified.
I don't think that's how it works. The court would not say "that code, everywhere and produced by any person or entity, is now public domain." It would say "you are not allowed to claim copyright on this work, because it was not produced by a human." That's it. Neither the developer nor the AI gets a copyright on it, but the original code's copyright and license is intact. If someone else were to see the code, believe it is public domain, and use it, that person would be in violation of the free software license. That's not a good situation, but it's a lot better than granting copyright to AI in my opinion.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some AI generated works shouldn't be pub
Only the courts can give the final answer, but I find it hard to imagine that judges would understand the importance of copyleft in keeping software free for anyone to modify and share in a way that the public domain can't.
But all that matters is whether the work is eligible for copyright, and that determination doesn't require any understanding of free software principles. If it is, you can put whatever license you want on it, including copyleft.
if Copilot were to produce verbatim a substantial chunk of GPL'ed code then the person using Copilot wouldn't know that 1. the code is actually copied from somewhere and 2. the license of the code is a copyleft license.
That would seem to be an entirely unrelated concern, no? Whether copyright is granted on Copilot developed code or not, if it reproduces copyleft licensed code without notifying the user, that's a problem.
I had to remember what this shooting actually was, so I looked it up on youtube, and another news station covered it (Cutting out the most graphic parts), again part of that whole fair use issue.
but ya, agree it's not a big tech problem for moderating their own content, as questionable as it is in this case, again, fair use in covering a news story.
TheResidentSkeptic (profile), 25 Feb 2022 @ 7:39am
My Favorite Books
When growing up were Haynes and Chiltons. Haynes doesn't even offer a manual for my C7. So there are other casualties in associated industries as well.
which is not something I ... can say about US Federal legislation vis-à-vis Tech…
/shakes head sadly
Why do you assume that only US federal legislation about tech is poorly crafted? The fable I heard was about newspapers, but it could equally apply to legislators:
You open the newspaper to an article whose subject you know very well. "This reporter doesn't know what he's talking about! I should give him a piece of my mind!"
On the next page is an article whose subject you know very little. "Boy, this reporter sure knows his stuff!"
" if the industries continue to push their luck in this space it's only a matter of time."
It's just a matter of providing incentive$ to the legislators and fund outfits to spread how more competition and openness is going to harm compettition (!!) and the children.
The person posts what they wish to post, other people respond. Every other form of communication I've mentioned has some kind of intermediary that can have control, especially if a broadcast is not live. TV has producers who can demand edits, as does radio. Newspapers have editors. Billboards typically have someone approving what goes on them. Live events usually have moderators. In formats when people are allowed to respond, the responders are going to be selected from a large pool of potential people and will have their responses filtered in some way, whether that's for time, relevance or something else.
The only major difference is that with social media some of the work is automated, but this can be waived for the speaker if it's an official government communication (as in, not the self-deluded whining of someone who chooses to use his personal account while in office) and then would apply mainly to the comments.
It seems like it, but my casual observation tells me that there's often an inverse correlation between how much effort the writers put into the title and the value of the overall package. Kudos to them for not trying to shoehorn some "patriot" or "freedom" or such nonsense intended to get an emotional response into it, but the fact they put the effort in to make it recursive gives me pause.
On the post: Trump's Truth Social Bakes Section 230 Directly Into Its Terms, So Apparently Trump Now Likes Section 230
Re: Re: Re:
Funny. You dodged the question.
On the post: US Copyright Office Gets It Right (Again): AI-Generated Works Do Not Get A Copyright Monopoly
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some AI
Once again it false or inaccurate terminology I have a problem with more than anything.
Parading “free as in freedom” for licensing that doesn’t offer complete freedom… bugs me.
Though that’s not my point. I was trying to understand the relationship between A and B.
Now o do.
Thanks for explaining.
On the post: Analog Books Go From Strength To Strength: Helped, Not Hindered, By The Digital World
Re: Re: Re:
That’s more accepting: “cottage industry “
As for the NES you may want to Bing nes home brew 2022, or famicom.
Also cottage but consistent. And new releases also sell well on ebay.
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_sacat=139973&_nkw=homebrew&Platform=Nintendo%2520NES&_ dcat=139973&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1
But as far as my claim “ and your claim that DVD didn't affect sales is laughable”
There’s more than just a new format at play here. It’s what Hollywood chose to support. Again, DVHS/Dtheatre was vastly superior in playback quality, and cost less to produce for distribution.
When you couldn’t get the latest film you wanted on vhs you bit the bullet so to speak. Buy a DVD player and start the transition.
It’s ultimately distributors that will chose where the industry goes.
On the post: Why It Makes No Sense To Call Websites 'Common Carriers'
At this point, shame, hypocrisy and irony have all lost their meaning with the GQP.
They will say and do whatever it is that they feel will get them ahead politically, even if they said and did something completely opposite earlier that same day.
They just don't seem to care about morals and ethics any longer and exist only to rile up their base of rubes to squeeze out of them as much money as possible.
The worst part about it, almost half the country doesn't give a shit, as long as it appears they are "owning the libs" they will gladly keep coughing up their hard earned cash.
On the post: New Right To Repair Bill Targets Obnoxious Auto Industry Behavior
Re:
If you're going to compare reporters with legislators, the main difference is that some reporters can fool some of the people some of the time, whereas legislators can fool only themselves.
Secondary to that, reporters have a steady income, whereas legislators receive a varying amount over time, depending on which lobbyists need what legislation to be passed (or opposed).
I'd rather have a reporter making laws for me, instead of a legislator that bought his/her way into the seat of power. At least reporters have seen what's really happening in the streets of America, to people from all walks of life. Legislators?
(I'll admit that there have been some exceptions to my thoughts on legislators, but they've been too few and much too far between.)
On the post: 15 Years Late, The FCC Cracks Down On Broadband Apartment Monopolies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this actually a good thing?
Thing is, as I said, it’s rather rare to find a longer-term location with zero possibility of changing cable or internet options through some method.
I also find it ironic you’d Focus on “ If he wants complete control, all he has to do is not open up accommodation to the public” here but throw opposing opinions out the window on social media.
Your stance is inconsistent.
On the post: ACLU & EFF Step Up To Tell Court You Don't Get To Expose An Anonymous Tweeter With A Sketchy Copyright Claim
Re: Is it possible
Sure, but it's just as possible they said all they needed to and aren't even aware any of this is going on.
On the post: No, Creating An NFT Of The Video Of A Horrific Shooting Will Not Get It Removed From The Internet
Re:
The way the courts have justified this is by effectively saying the copyright is on the framing of the shot -- the "creative" choices is where to point the camera to frame the image or video...
On the post: New Right To Repair Bill Targets Obnoxious Auto Industry Behavior
Back in 2004, it was the blinking lights that triggered the 'check engine light'. The automakers were claiming that to be a trade secret and that no independent repair shop should have them. Which in turn gave them the bulk of repairs while the independents were starting to close down because they couldn't properly diagnose.
This has always been the dealership's wet dream. To shovel all repairs to their more expensive services. Since their services are always what the traffic will bear or more, they are always pretty much over priced.
There will again come up this sort of thing in the future as they again try to shoehorn in the repairs by locking them down to where only the dealership will be able to repair it. This is twice now this has happened that I am aware of.
On the post: US Copyright Office Gets It Right (Again): AI-Generated Works Do Not Get A Copyright Monopoly
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some AI generated works shouldn't be pub
I don't think that's how it works. The court would not say "that code, everywhere and produced by any person or entity, is now public domain." It would say "you are not allowed to claim copyright on this work, because it was not produced by a human." That's it. Neither the developer nor the AI gets a copyright on it, but the original code's copyright and license is intact. If someone else were to see the code, believe it is public domain, and use it, that person would be in violation of the free software license. That's not a good situation, but it's a lot better than granting copyright to AI in my opinion.
On the post: Peloton Outage Prevents Customers From Using $2,500 Exercise Bikes
Re: Here's an idea, GO FUCKING OUTSIDE
Clearly someone has never tried biking in a snowstorm before.
On the post: US Copyright Office Gets It Right (Again): AI-Generated Works Do Not Get A Copyright Monopoly
Re: Re: Re: Some AI generated works shouldn't be public domain.
Making sure Copilot-developed code isn't public domain doesn't solve that problem.
On the post: US Copyright Office Gets It Right (Again): AI-Generated Works Do Not Get A Copyright Monopoly
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some AI generated works shouldn't be pub
But all that matters is whether the work is eligible for copyright, and that determination doesn't require any understanding of free software principles. If it is, you can put whatever license you want on it, including copyleft.
That would seem to be an entirely unrelated concern, no? Whether copyright is granted on Copilot developed code or not, if it reproduces copyleft licensed code without notifying the user, that's a problem.
On the post: US Copyright Office Gets It Right (Again): AI-Generated Works Do Not Get A Copyright Monopoly
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some AI gene
Perhaps this will help clarify:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html
On the post: No, Creating An NFT Of The Video Of A Horrific Shooting Will Not Get It Removed From The Internet
I had to remember what this shooting actually was, so I looked it up on youtube, and another news station covered it (Cutting out the most graphic parts), again part of that whole fair use issue.
but ya, agree it's not a big tech problem for moderating their own content, as questionable as it is in this case, again, fair use in covering a news story.
On the post: New Right To Repair Bill Targets Obnoxious Auto Industry Behavior
My Favorite Books
When growing up were Haynes and Chiltons. Haynes doesn't even offer a manual for my C7. So there are other casualties in associated industries as well.
On the post: New Right To Repair Bill Targets Obnoxious Auto Industry Behavior
/shakes head sadly
Why do you assume that only US federal legislation about tech is poorly crafted? The fable I heard was about newspapers, but it could equally apply to legislators:
You open the newspaper to an article whose subject you know very well. "This reporter doesn't know what he's talking about! I should give him a piece of my mind!"
On the next page is an article whose subject you know very little. "Boy, this reporter sure knows his stuff!"
On the post: New Right To Repair Bill Targets Obnoxious Auto Industry Behavior
On the post: How Our Convoluted Copyright Regime Explains Why Spotify Chose Joe Rogan Over Neil Young
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How?
The person posts what they wish to post, other people respond. Every other form of communication I've mentioned has some kind of intermediary that can have control, especially if a broadcast is not live. TV has producers who can demand edits, as does radio. Newspapers have editors. Billboards typically have someone approving what goes on them. Live events usually have moderators. In formats when people are allowed to respond, the responders are going to be selected from a large pool of potential people and will have their responses filtered in some way, whether that's for time, relevance or something else.
The only major difference is that with social media some of the work is automated, but this can be waived for the speaker if it's an official government communication (as in, not the self-deluded whining of someone who chooses to use his personal account while in office) and then would apply mainly to the comments.
On the post: New Right To Repair Bill Targets Obnoxious Auto Industry Behavior
Re: Re: Re: I just hope…
It seems like it, but my casual observation tells me that there's often an inverse correlation between how much effort the writers put into the title and the value of the overall package. Kudos to them for not trying to shoehorn some "patriot" or "freedom" or such nonsense intended to get an emotional response into it, but the fact they put the effort in to make it recursive gives me pause.
Next >>