I’m going by the plain language of the laws. It’s the copyright cartel shysters and the judicial system biased in their favor that are making shit up.

AFAIK that whole instance is nothing but Reddit repost communities and ought to just be defederated.

This is so stupid it wraps around to hilarious, then wraps around again to just plain stupid.

Copyright is an intellectual property right, firmly grounded in property law doctrine–you are probably thinking of trademark, which is rooted in consumer protection law, or likeness rights which have their roots in privacy law.

First of all, “Intellectual property[sic]” is a not a thing. There are copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets, but they are all significantly different from each other. Trying to lump them together under a single term is disingenuous at best, and using the word “property” in that term is biased loaded language.

Second, copyright cannot be a property right because ideas cannot be property. In fact, ideas are essentially the opposite of property, as Thomas Jefferson once pointed out:

it would be curious then if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. if nature has made any one thing less susceptible, than all others, of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an Idea; which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the reciever cannot dispossess himself of it. it’s peculiar character too is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. he who recieves an idea from me, recieves instruction himself, without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, recieves light without darkening me.

What copyright actually is, is a temporary monopoly granted at the whim of Congress. It’s a license, not a right.

• A property right is a thing the owner is entitled to, and a natural right. In contrast, a copyright is an artificial construct invented as a power of Congress, and granted with the express purpose “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts,” not because the creator of the work somehow deserved it.
• Ownership of a piece of property exists in perpetuity until it is sold and cannot be taken from the owner without “just compensation.” In contrast, copyright exists explicitly “for limited times” and then it expires and the work reverts to the Public Domain.

Just skim to the part that tells you to type “yes, do as I say!”

In fact, the image in the meme shows an Ubuntu system installing updates using apt.

I could be wrong, but I think I bought (or rather, my parents bought) my first CD-ROM drive for installing Windows 95. I think that might have been the very first disc I put in the drive.

ITT: people misunderstanding the issue being ruled on (or rather, not being ruled on by letting the lower court decision stand).

If he had applied for copyright over the image generated using “AI” as a tool, it (edit: probably²) would have been granted, with him listed as the human author. But that’s not what he wanted. He’s apparently Hell-bent on trying to get the work registered in the name of the “AI” system itself as the author, to so that he can claim that the government recognized the “AI” as a sentient being that can own property hold a copyright¹ on its own behalf.

This is not the broad ruling against AI slop copyrightability that people think it is. It’s a ruling against “AI” personhood.

(¹ Copyright isn’t a property right, BTW)

(² He explicitly claimed he gave no creative contribution and that the work was created completely autonomously, and the court’s ruling included excluding that from being copyrightable. It is if he hadn’t done that – if he had claimed he had directed it via prompts or whatever – that I think they would have granted the copyright to him as the human author. It turns out that he changed his mind and did make that argument on appeal, but the court explicitly ignored and did not rule on it because it wasn’t raised in his initial complaint.)

In other words, it’s not that he as the human operating the “AI” is trying to claim copyright in his own name, it’s that he’s trying to set a precedent where the “AI” can hold copyright in its own name.

He’s trying to pretend that his glorified pile of statistics is sentient, and get it legally recognized as such. 🤡

You forgot about the part where the possibility of generating hydrogen cleanly from electricity later is used as an excuse to build infrastructure and fuel-cell cars for it now, even though hydrogen now is dirty hydrogen produced by cracking fossil fuels.

I have no confidence that the second phase of switching to electrolysis would actually happen, and that “the hydrogen economy” isn’t just a greenwashing scam perpetrated by natural gas producers.

“Campaign office doubling as a mutual aid hub” is pretty neat.

I, for one, thought they were supposed to have been replaced in the US by the F-22 and/or F-35 and therefore assumed they were only still being used by other countries.

LOL at the F-35 erasure.

How many aircraft did Iran have flying around to begin with?

Even aside from the obvious (or at least, should-be-obvious) tyranny, there are so many problems with this as a concept. For example, WTF is supposed to happen when the OS is in a VM spun up by an automated system and has no human user to begin with?

Oh, by the way: I used the phrase “intellectual property[sic]” in the meme because I was quoting the previously-posted one, but FYI “intellectual property” isn’t actually a thing. It is misleading and harmful loaded language that should be avoided.

In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not. I hope folks here can at least agree on that.

Not sure wood is a softer material than vinyl (depending on species).

My concern would be the difficulty of engraving without the grain interfering with the groove.

Somebody called it “operation Epstein bury” in another thread and as far as I’m concerned, that’s the real name now.

deleted by creator