freejazz

27 ms·

721.
by freejazz 1y ago
You can't show porn to kids in regular stores, I'm not sure why it's okay to do it on the internet, such that it becomes "raising" the kids when it's not in the first instance.
722.
by freejazz 1y ago
Calling it social consensus isn't an attempt to describe how the protocol works because you are talking about two different things. The consensus on which protocol to use, and the workings of the protocol itself. You're response t
723.
by freejazz 1y ago
Incredibly pedantic, no less when this whole thing started with "seems like someone missed the boat"
724.
by freejazz 1y ago
For sure, hence the question...
725.
by freejazz 1y ago
Yeah, and? The netflix show about Dahmer was popular too... So what?
726.
by freejazz 1y ago
> due to personal choices rather than a sign of misfortune What would be the difference, exactly?
727.
by freejazz 1y ago
Well, very weird... which would be "off the rails"
728.
by freejazz 1y ago
Well, the HitlerGrok thing happened yesterday... I ask this genuinely and without any intent to cause offense: given your name, are you a bit?
729.
by freejazz 1y ago
Did he argue in that case that it was worth less than half the purchase price? I do recall he argued it was a material misrepresentation by twitter, but that the terms of the contract ran against him there. I do not recall it having been va
730.
by freejazz 1y ago
None of this is in good faith. I'm not morally scandalized by Grok. I'm morally scandalized that they would make it do that. I'm sure you're going to argue some ridiculous semantic point about how Grok actually did it al
731.
by freejazz 1y ago
Like, financially? Sure. I don't think that was ever in dispute.
732.
by freejazz 1y ago
You think he's just normal stupid? It's a minimum especially stupid
733.
by freejazz 1y ago
> perfectly executed by omniscient villains with 20/20 hindsight Is a strawman, to which the conclusion is also defied by the plain evidence of everything Musk has done on Twitter
734.
by freejazz 1y ago
I don't think anyone has any interest in "debating" you. Personally, I don't get into arguments with people who do not seem connected to reality. There is no point in it. That seems like the sort of thing a 12 year old w
735.
by freejazz 1y ago
>I'm genuinely trying to engage and I'm curious where my preconceptions are Sure, I appreciate that. My point is that none of this has anything to do with § 1201 so there's really no point in coming to this with a kind of
736.
by freejazz 1y ago
I don't think 1201 is invoked in this case and, as a copyright attorney, I don't really ever see it invoked anyway. I understand you have an axe to grind, but I don't see how your approach makes sense. Further, I'm not s
737.
by freejazz 1y ago
Sure, except that sample packs are original materials by their author (as opposed to whatever Suno contains, which is other people's work). And yes, I imagine that sample packs come with a license to use the samples commercially. Oth
738.
by freejazz 1y ago
That's because a massage is not a copyrightable expression (dance is), not because it's sold as a service.
739.
by freejazz 1y ago
I didn't describe an LLM. Read the thread. I decsribed a particular type of service or machine where the maker would liable as a contributory infringer without directly infringing. That's all. Read my post, I even said "Not s
740.
by freejazz 1y ago
I don't think anyone could reasonably characterize a DAW as a tool designed to infringe copyrights with so I don't think there is an issue. The fact that none of the labels have ever sued DAWs for this reason should be an intuitio
741.
by freejazz 1y ago
Sure, but if you are just essentially making a copyright infringement tool, and then selling it to people so they can use it to infringe, and then they go and use it to infringe, you're a contributory infringer. Not saying this is exac
742.
by freejazz 1y ago
I'm curious - do the people here who think copyright shouldn't exist also think trademark shouldn't exist?
743.
by freejazz 1y ago
The publishers could license the works in bulk, without the need for Anthropic to deal with the individual authors. Both sides pointed this out.
744.
by freejazz 1y ago
Do you think that Anthropic did not have the option of getting legal advice before they decided to pirate libraries of books for their own commercial purposes? I understand that some of these things might be confusing to you, but Anthropic
745.
by freejazz 1y ago
What sort of things do you think people do that it is often the case that there is a genuine question of whether or not the use was fair? >You have to do it in order to get into court and find out of you're allowed to do it (a rid
746.
by freejazz 1y ago
>It's a four factor test because all of the factors are relevant, but if the use has negligible effect on the market for the work then it's pretty hard to get anywhere with the others. For example, for cases like classroom use,
747.
by freejazz 1y ago
Re-read my comment: " If you do that and reproduce the covers or the protected elements thereof " This conversation becomes incredibly unenjoyable when you pull rhetorical techniques like completely ignoring the entirety of what I
748.
by freejazz 1y ago
>It's inherent in the nature of the test. The most important fair use factor is the effect on the market for the work, so if the use would be uneconomical without fair use then the effect on the market is negligible because the alte
749.
by freejazz 1y ago
If you do that and reproduce the covers or the protected elements thereof, you should absolutely expect to be sued.
750.
by freejazz 1y ago
>It kind of is though? No, it kinda isn't. Show me anything that supports this idea beyond your own immediate conjecture right now. >It's not the only reason fair use exists, but it's the thing that allows e.g. search e

More ›