Economics is hardly a prejudice. You’re not making a lot of sense, anyway.
Surely pointing to China is a better way to make the point that liberal democracy is not the only road to riches. I simply want to encourage people to take a hard-nosed look at the tenets of liberal democracy. They are not a revealed truth. They prevailed for a reason.
@Mistral@lemmings.world You still there?
When copying is legal for profit, it’s safe to assume that it’s also legal without profit.
YouTube and similar platforms are major content distributors. Content owners would not be able to enforce their rights without automated surveillance, whether through Content ID or another system. Meanwhile, it is generally not economical for small creators, influencers, to litigate erroneous detections. So in many cases, Content ID is the ultimate arbiter of copyright.
When the likes of Taylor Swift or Donald Trump want to collect their licensing fees, they will use an automated system. And if some hapless citizen feels harassed by fakes and wants to make them harder to find, that will what be their only choice.
No surprise there.
People seem to have forgotten that liberal democracy prevailed not through moral arguments or appeals to conscience. It prevailed because it was stronger in war and in peace. It makes more and better weapons when it has to, and enables its citizens a better life otherwise.
Look how Hungary oppresses LGBT people. That costs a lot of money and eventually only means that members of that minority pay less taxes and contribute less to the economy.
Look to the US. The poorest states in the nation are those that were committed to racial oppression. The US would be even richer without that frivolous waste of human potential. And not just the victims but everyone.
It would work like Copyright currently works.
Yes, exactly. Content ID is a major part of how copyright currently works. The content industry convinced US courts that merely reacting to take-down notices was not enough. Companies hosting user generated content need to proactively search for infringing content.
In the EU, written law goes somewhat further. In both the US and EU, this explicitly does not require a lawsuit. It is an automated process for most practical purposes.
I can’t predict how Danish courts will see this. There are currently cases ongoing at the EU level that will make things clearer in that respect.
The point is, to enforce such a copyright, there needs to be a database of likenesses and their owners.
In practice, this is only going to be relevant for very few people, mainly famous personalities, their heirs, or whoever owns their likeness. However, if you wanted to enforce this for the entire population, the database would have to be under very close watch by the government, at least similar to a commercial bank if not outright a government entity. That’s necessitated by data protection rights in Europe.
West Germany
Oh wow. Looks like you fell into a time warp, comrade. No spoilers but it’ll all get better in 1953. But stay away from Moscow in March.
Trying to parse this…
Orban is going after LGBTQ people in Hungary. He even denies the freedom of assembly. But that’s apparently someone else’s problem.
Orban is now using face recognition to police even small infractions, in contravention of the AI Act. Apparently, this is the real horror.
Banning all face recognition in public spaces in the EU is somehow going to fix this.
Not sure if these people are stupid or if this is some kind of grift.
The answer seems obvious. This is simply a gift to famous people, who will be able to demand licensing fees without having to do any additional work. Just neo-feudalism.
The pitch makes as much sense as trying to sell ordinary copyright as a way to stop people forging documents.
Yes. You’ve heard about billions being invested in new data centers in the EU?
Then there’s also the “EU-US Data Privacy Framework”. People here don’t really understand what the GDPR is about.
False.
Germany built up it’s army in preparation for attacking the rest of Europe. Adults usually know this. Sorry if I have misjudged your age.
Germany and Soviet Russia were allies and cooperated in the attack on Poland. This only fell apart when Hitler betrayed Stalin by invading the Soviet Union.
It is said that in all his life, Stalin only ever trusted one person: Adolf Hitler. When German communists conscripted into the Wehrmacht defected in the night before the attack, to bring warning to the Soviet Union, Stalin had them shot. The last supply train carrying grain for Nazi Germany crossed the border less than 2 hours before the launch.
False. Western Europe increased arms spending in response to German aggression. Germany increased arms spending… well.
Who’s calling for that boycott? Putin?
Respect for the true pacifists out there, but investing in EU-based defense industry is hardly questionable by ordinary standards.
The answer is yes. There is a lot of disinformation being spread, maybe to influence juries, or maybe to undermine the already beleaguered rule of law in the US. The truth is that there is very little unexpected about these judgments. That’s how fair use works.
Yes, Otherwise it wouldn’t lower the value.
There is a lot of disinformation being spread, maybe to influence juries, or maybe to undermine the already beleaguered rule of law in the US. The truth is that there is very little unexpected about these judgments. That’s how fair use works.
I don’t know what that is talking about.
Not comparable.
Samples are actual copies which are part of a song. Someone might claim that a hip hop artist just steals the good bits of other people’s songs and mashes them together without contributing any meaningful creativity on their own. Well. History shows that such arguments were quite foolish. Nevertheless, the copies are there, and they do add value to the new song.
To get an LLM model to spit out training data takes careful manipulation by the user. This rarely happens by accident. It also does not add value to the model. It does the opposite: The possibility of accidentally violating copyright lowers the value.
No.