freejazz

23 ms·

511.
by freejazz 1y ago
These are interesting questions but they are not legal questions. Intent is not an element of infringement. It is only an element of willful infringement. Therefor it can never be used as a defense against infringement on its own. >The f
512.
by freejazz 1y ago
That's an opinion, not a fact.
513.
by freejazz 1y ago
>Hmm, this is an interesting framing of the lawsuit. First, it's not a "framing" of the lawsuit. A lawsuit is a number of claims made by one party against the other. In the two California cases, there were no decisions mad
514.
by freejazz 1y ago
You haven't offered any facts for anyone to dispute the accuracy of
515.
by freejazz 1y ago
> Companionship is easy to find, but finding someone who respects you is not. And these men wonder why women don't want to be with them!
516.
by freejazz 1y ago
> polarizing conspiracy theories with limited factual accuracy Huh? Like the idea that young men are widely being told that "everything is their fault because they have male privilege?"
517.
by freejazz 1y ago
litrally
518.
by freejazz 1y ago
I'm confused. I don't think I'm liable for anything. I am not OpenAI.
519.
by freejazz 1y ago
Primarily you seem to be missing the fact that the NYT case is about outputs, not just the training.
520.
by freejazz 1y ago
Damn, you'd think OpenAI would have made this argument! Maybe there's something you're missing if this didn't save the day for them.
521.
by freejazz 1y ago
OpenAI is not allowed to reproduce the NYT's articles, that's copyright infringement. It does not really matter if it is a practical thing or not, that would only go to damages, not liability.
522.
by freejazz 1y ago
Have you read OpenAI's terms of service? Which part is being violated by producing anonymized logs in response to discovery? OpenAI's ToS state that they will produce your data in response to discovery. What's not clicking fo
523.
by freejazz 1y ago
>Let's say they do find some juicy detail and use it, then what? Nothing. It's not like you can ever fix a privacy violation. Nobody involved would get a serious punishment, like prison time, either. There are no privacy violat
524.
by freejazz 1y ago
Again, as I pointed out to you numerous times in this thread. OpenAI already represented to the court that the data was anonymized and that they can anonymize it, so you are significantly departing from the actual facts in your discussion h
525.
by freejazz 1y ago
>Meanwhile back in reality, as of today that order is being challenged, and challenging the scope of an interlocutory order in discovery is a normal thing and part of a coherent legal position. So I don't know why you're preten
526.
by freejazz 1y ago
>Discovery isn't binary yes/no, it involves competing proposals regarding methods and scope for satisfying information requests. Sometimes requests are egregious or excessive, sometimes they are reasonable and subject to excess
527.
by freejazz 1y ago
No, it's not. OpenAI is a commercial enterprise selling the stolen data.
528.
by freejazz 1y ago
Well the court disagrees with you and found that this is evidence that the NYT needs to prove its case. No surprise, considering its direct evidence of exactly what OpenAI is claiming in its defense...
529.
by freejazz 1y ago
>By the same token, why isn't NYT proposing something like that rather than the world's largest random sampling? It's OpenAI's data, there is a protective order in the case and OpenAI already agreed to anonymize it al
530.
by freejazz 1y ago
OpenAI is so full of shit, this is incredible. There is a protective order and the logs are anonymized. Yet they would happily give this all to the gov't under a warrant. Incredibly self serving bs from them. The court ordered the prod
531.
by freejazz 1y ago
De minimus is when you only use a small portion of the lyrics, so it is not considered infringement.
532.
by freejazz 1y ago
> I am baffled why you are inserting good and evil into this. Is it that you don't want to consider evil, then? I'm not sure how you can consider good without considering evil. >Do you going into this rant when a coworker as
533.
by freejazz 1y ago
It's true for some that morality is not an issue at all.
534.
by freejazz 1y ago
What percentage of streaming income does opera, as a genre, represent such that it could even factor into this business decision?
535.
by freejazz 1y ago
At some point, use of the lyrics becomes de minimis
536.
by freejazz 1y ago
US copyright law originates in the constitution and the US does not follow a number of elements of the Berne convention, such as moral rights.
537.
by freejazz 1y ago
>That's not how laws and regulations work in European or even EU countries. Courts/the legal system in Germany can not set legal precedents for other countries, and countries don't use legal precedents from other countries
538.
by freejazz 1y ago
>But creating a derivative work based on the song? You need a license to create derivative works.
539.
by freejazz 1y ago
It's a good decision because it must be an incredible minority of people who only listen to music when the lyrics can be displayed. I'd imagine most people aren't even looking at the music playing app while listening to music
540.
by freejazz 1y ago
> that Tetris's look and feel and gameplay elements are copyrightable. Those are expressions, not concepts. >In particular, the idea that look and feel are not subject to copyright now belongs on the list of "false things pr

More ›