General_Effort @ General_Effort @lemmy.world

Posts

171

Comments

1,971

Joined

2 yr. ago

Come join the fediverse. Now illegal in Australia!

It gets my attention but I don't really see the mainstream appeal.

Sensible strategy for both sides, though I think Disney was a bit more desperate for a deal. Licensing characters makes it easier for Disney to win Fair Use cases. Meanwhile, if Fair Use is beaten back, then OpenAI may be able to finally create a moat for itself. Challengers would have to either obtain a license or employ expensive filtering. Both would make it rather harder for start-ups.

Adam the creator

Very unlikely, in the eyes of the US court system. They have no EU physical presence, and aren’t advertising targeting EU people.

That's exactly the thing. US courts don't care about foreign laws in the first place. They don't care about a EU presence at all.

Nevertheless, the EU demands that any websites, internet services, ... that are offered to EU users follow EU laws like GDPR. If it's in a language not spoken in the EU, then it's probably fine. If lemmy.today declared that it was specifically for Oregonians, that would likely be fine, too. But anything in English that is offered globally, is a potential target.

That should not be taken lightly. If the 4chan people travelled to UK, they would probably be arrested. They will have to watch out when they travel abroad if the country might assist the UK and arrest and arrest them. If they ever acquire property abroad, that might be seized.

Fedi-servers in the EU certainly have to follow these regulations.

You know how 4chan is doing business in the UK? In the same way, lemmy.today is doing business in the EU.

This ruling is not likely to have immediate consequences for the fediverse, since the GDPR is not enforced much.

I don't think it is actually impossible, as the headline claims. Platforms that have already been on the receiving of enforcement are probably fine, eg Facebook.

No. Murder was illegal in nazi Germany. There simply was no rule of law.

Formally, part of this was justified by a law that gave Hitler the power to make laws without parliament, without oversight, without regard for the constitution. Of course, that sort of thing is nonsense. People who went along with that made a choice. FWIW, all those generals who felt they had to obey Hitler's order according to their oath, they also had sworn an oath to the republic.

This can only be understood if one remembers that Germany had been a republic for barely 15 years. A good chunk of the elites (not just rich people, but judges, bureaucrats, ... ) were indifferent or even hostile to democracy.

The holocaust itself was not justified by anything. There was no law that made it legal to murder jewish people or anyone else.

I had just heard the expression: "It helps the general effort." It was in a Discworld audiobook. It made me think: "Yeah, I could use some help right now." That was still rattling around in my head when I had to come up with a username. I don't remember what I was having trouble with, so I guess that worked out.

Genau so wird das jetzt von den Gerichten ausgelegt. Was die pseudonymen Daten angeht, wurde das erst kürzlich vom EuGH so ausgelegt (Case C-413/23 P). Einen besonderen "Bruch" oder gar irgendwelche "Eingriffe" kann ich da nicht erkennen.

Yeah, one would think so. And those were the hobbyists that Gates was addressing in that open letter.

"They" is the copyright industry. The same people, who are suing AI companies for money, want the Internet Archive gone for more money.

I share the fear that the copyrightists reach a happy compromise with the bigger AI companies and monopolize knowledge. But for now, AI companies are fighting for Fair Use. The Internet Archive is already benefitting from those precedents.

In the US, copyright is limited by Fair Use. It is still IP. Eventually, you'd just be changing how Fair Use works. Not all for the better, I think.

Maybe one could compare it to a right of way over someone's physical property. The public may use it for a certain purpose, in a limited way, which lowers its value. But what value it has, belongs to the owner.

What kind of person owned a computer as a hobby in 1976?

That's true in the same way that Trump's tariffs are paid by other countries. Which is to say: Not at all.

Bill Gates was no billionaire at the time. His background was probably shared by almost all computer hobbyists at the time.

"Property is theft."

the caveats that commercializing someone else’s work or taking credit for someone else’s work should be illegal.

So, not actually abolishing IP, then.

It's a bit of a split among libertarians. Some very notable figures like Ayn Rand were strong believers in IP. In fact, Ayn Rand's dogmas very much align with what is falsely represented as left-wing thought in the context of AI.

It's really irritating for me how much conservative capitalist ideals are passed off as left-wing. Like, attitudes on corporations channel Adam Smith. I think of myself as pragmatic and find that Smith or even Hayek had some good points (not Rand, though). But it's absolutely grating how uneducated that all is. Worst of all, it makes me realize that for all the anti-capitalist rhetoric, the favored policies are all about making everything worse.

I really don't get how opinions on intellectual property and its "theft" turn 180 whenever AI is mentioned.

No. At least, the last version I saw wanted text messages to be scanned for "grooming".

People want goods and services, as well as jobs. Politicians need to make that happen, and so they listen to the people who know how to make that happen. Sometimes that goes wrong because eventually employers don't have quite the same goals as their employees. There is no good alternative, though.

One player that clearly had a lot of input is the (news) media. EG the press publishers want to license their old news articles for AI training. They can do that thanks to EU copyright law. That's free money. But news articles talk about living people, which means they contain personal data.

Despite competition from social media, the trad media, including press publishers, is still extremely influential. Politicians need their favor to get votes.

I don't see how Big Tech is getting much here. Of course, NGOs need the media's favor just as much as politicians. Pointing the finger at some nebulous forces from outside is certainly the safest choice, politically speaking.

Das ist ein echtes Problem. (Nicht nur Alte-Leute-Gemecker, wie es in der Überschrift klingt.)