A game you paid for. On a console you also paid for. And you also pay for PS Plus as well.
A game you paid for. On a console you also paid for. And you also pay for PS Plus as well.
While some just snap a photo. And both are equally copyrightable
Going by US laws (life + 70 years), all of Picasso’s art is all still copyright protected in the US until 2043, so it’s even less of a difference than you may realize.
It’s less stupud to listen to Taylor Swift than it is to Ben Shapiro.
Choose who you listen to wisely. And no, her being a singer has little influence on that decision.
It’s not about ABS, its about BS like an everything touchscreen, tracking, bullshit subscriptions and the like
Yes. Yes it did.
No, they did not report that in media.
It is about them and their honour.
However, their honour isn’t how they’re percieved and treated by others, it’s how they themselves act. They’re the first ones who should show honour and dignity towards their defendants, clerks, etc.
Angry fits like this one just show the judge got corrupted by power and should either be given time to reflect or disbarred.
The horse knows and it doesnt care
The only unfair thing about the upcoming election is that this guy is running. And also not in prison, but that’s not directly related to the election anyway.
Both have to be more than a pebble, right?
Doesn’t Windows give a popup saying “Do you want to extract the folder before running the executable” anymore?
Edit: typo (funning to running)
I’m against the death penalty, so corporate disbandanment
That’s why we need right to repair
Don’t forget waiting for hours, going to the toilet for a leak and returning to see you’ve been skipped
I swear I’ve seen this meme somewhere with a Cybertruck instead of a Wrangler
Or “protect and serve their egos”. Implies both their own egos and those of the higher class
Kind of unrelated, but couldn’t this be prosecuted (among other things) on 4th amendment grounds, as I doubt “threathening people with a stick” isn’t protected (assuming qualified immunity otherwise) Although I doubt the curent SCOTUS lineup would come to any sensible decision on any matter.
About thinness: I also like my phones bendy and snappy (iPhone 6), as well as exploding batteries (Galaxy Note 7 or 10, I don’t remember the exact model tbh).
Or you have to ‘hold it right’ (OG iPhone).
These were all huge issues that could be fixed without sacrificing the thinness.
Thinness shouldn’t be used as an excuse for otherwise shitty phones, since it’s clearly a non-sequitur.
If anyone deserves copyright over a photo, it’s the people that had their work photographed without permission. Then, the most deserving of the copyright are the camera and film manufacturers that made photography possible.
I think this is an angle that isn’t pften taken. The advent of photography was a very similar situation to the current advent of AI.
However, there are some crucial differences. For example, a photo can realistically be taken for personal use, which is either protected by law, or at least tolerated. AI, on the other hand, doesn’t have this going for it (you wouldn’t really go to the trouble of training an AI model for personal use). Even if the model and everything else is fully transparent and open source, it’s still gobbling up copyrighted data for commercial purposes - the model’s authors or the users’. Luckily, there is no AI fair use carveout (and I hope there won’t ever be one).
Another thing I’d like to point out: in the vast majority of european legal systems copyright isn’t called “Copyright”, but “Authors’ rights”, i.e. its primary purpose isn’t to restrict copying as much as it’s protect the interests of the author (not publisher/corporation, although this unfortunately got bastardised a while ago).
I can only hope the EU takes a reasonable approach to AI (that is, ban it from gobbling copyrighted work, require current “tainted” models be purged along with corporations paying reparations to the authors, as well as banning EULA clauses along the lines of “by signing up we get to feed all your information into the AI”).
By my first comment I was trying to point out the fact that the “time invested” argument isn’t that strong. That doesn’t mean there aren’t better arguments or that I don’t agree with the general idea, just that we need better arguments if we want to win this fight.