freejazz

14 ms·

331.
by freejazz 8mo ago
>Sure there is, if you can send back a strong response to a challenge, a potential litigant may back down ultimately saving money. Do you litigate? Hiring a new attorney to show up day of trial only communicates to the other side that it
332.
by freejazz 8mo ago
Doubt that. There's no point of bringing in a litigator on day 1 of a trial save for the fact they are probably a better public speaker. Whatever needed to get done needed to be done well before trial started.
333.
by freejazz 8mo ago
Do share with the class
334.
by freejazz 8mo ago
In house counsel aren't doing trials
335.
by freejazz 8mo ago
Patents aren't going to cover the vast majority of what exists as code because patents only cover inventions and not common every day code. > Copyright is meaningless when, as people have done, you can reproduce entire saas products
336.
by freejazz 8mo ago
I didn't say it would be a huge risk, I just disagree that any of those features of the law cover what copyright does. They don't. If a trade secret is ever revealed, all protection is lost. Breach of contract is very complex
337.
by freejazz 8mo ago
The king paid for it
338.
by freejazz 8mo ago
> do you not dispute that prompting AI to create an artistic image is functionally the same as outsourcing to another human? From who's perspective? Fundamentally, in one situation a human is creating something and in the other situ
339.
by freejazz 8mo ago
Copyright is the strongest legal protection available. It does not have a state of mind element. Breach of contract is much more complicated and context-dependent. >There is in fact "otherwise protection" for the software indus
340.
by freejazz 8mo ago
What matter is whether or not its a masterpiece?
341.
by freejazz 8mo ago
That would be authorship, no?
342.
by freejazz 8mo ago
>The idea of copyright is to prohibit unauthorized use and reproduction, but none of this actually happens with a proprietary software SaaS backend. You don't actually give anybody the code - they connect to the service. The point i
343.
by freejazz 8mo ago
> If some toddler spends two hours on a drawing, it's a masterpiece? A work doesn't have to be a masterpiece to obtain a copyright so what difference does it make? The point of copyright isn't to subjectively critique art.
344.
by freejazz 8mo ago
> human review or testing Review and testing do not confer a copyright the work reviewed or tested
345.
by freejazz 8mo ago
>I'm not sure this is really true, since copyright applies to distribution. Do you mean that a work has to be published prior to registration? What do you mean by "copyright applies to distribution"?
346.
by freejazz 8mo ago
>If that’s how the court interpreted it, then the software industry is hosed, since that’d mean none of the generated code running in production right now is under any sort of copyright or otherwise protection, lol. Correct, the jurispru
347.
by freejazz 8mo ago
> There's no theft in adaptation There is if it's taken without license when it would otherwise be restricted...
348.
by freejazz 8mo ago
That's pretty hypothetical. Do you not like music, movies and other art? Which art do you like? Which art do you think you'd see more of if there was no copyright?
349.
by freejazz 8mo ago
Corporations don't create copyrighted work. Authors do and assign their rights over. I continue to think that people pontificating on this space would be well served to inform themselves about how the business is generally conducted, a
350.
by freejazz 8mo ago
I don't see anyone here judging you for going to work and wanting to be compensated for your efforts. But suddenly authors are "extract[ing] as much value from society as possible"? That's just rude. If we're being
351.
by freejazz 8mo ago
How often do you see the US enforcing copyrights?
352.
by freejazz 8mo ago
In some states, yeah, but it is not a copyright and has nothing to do with copyright.
353.
by freejazz 8mo ago
A human's own likeness is not copyrightable. Hard to take posts about copyright doctrine seriously when they are premised on complete misunderstanding.
354.
by freejazz 8mo ago
If its the term that's the issue, it's the term, not copyright itself. Which do you think it is?
355.
by freejazz 8mo ago
Probably by not starting with "your side"
356.
by freejazz 8mo ago
"Your side"
357.
by freejazz 8mo ago
Not sure how that follows but okay
358.
by freejazz 8mo ago
What needs do machines have? What desires do they have?
359.
by freejazz 8mo ago
Anthropic is not a public company.
360.
by freejazz 8mo ago
Again, that is put so vaguely as to be actionably useless.

More ›