"When Oxford University developed the vaccine AstraZeneca ended up owning... It was actually Bill Gates who lobbied Oxford... to say no, this has to be sold to a drug company'... so it becomes 'IP'... the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have been central players in ensuring that no precedent is set in the context of COVID for commercially valuable products to break the normal market-based rules on how what's called 'IP' is distributed."
#IP#Copyright#PublicDomain: "2024 has been off to a busy start with the long-anticipated arrival of Mickey Mouse and Steamboat Willie in the public domain. Creators have released new games and stories, including a comic that picks up where Steamboat Willie ends. Comedian John Oliver has been showcasing a “Steamboat Mickey” mascot. CBS Sunday Morning even aired a Mickey-inspired celebration of the public domain featuring an interview with CSPD Director Jennifer Jenkins.
This is just the beginning of Mickey’s new life in the public domain. Next year, over a dozen Mickey Mouse cartoons from 1929 will join Steamboat Willie in the public domain. These cartoons continue Disney’s innovative experiments with synchronized sound and include The Karnival Kid, the first film in which Mickey speaks intelligible words. His first words? “Hot dogs! Hot dogs!”
Like other Disney works, The Karnival Kid builds upon prior public domain material. To attract an audience for Minnie Mouse’s “shimmy dancer” performance, the Karnival barker riffs on a 19th Century tune known as “the snake charmer song.” This melody has also been featured in numerous other Disney cartoons and may be familiar to readers from the scores of additional reuses in works ranging from The Simpsons to Ke$ha’s Take It Off." https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/newsletter/April2024/
I've slowly been watching the physical address associated with my #IP address move closer and closer to my real location. Why and how does it do this? It's odd that it almost shifts around.
#AI#GenerativeAI#AITraining#Copyright#IP#Amazon: "A lawsuit is alleging Amazon was so desperate to keep up with the competition in generative AI it was willing to breach its own copyright rules.…
The allegation emerges from a complaint [PDF] accusing the tech and retail mega-corp of demoting, and then dismissing, a former high-flying AI scientist after it discovered she was pregnant.
The lawsuit was filed last week in a Los Angeles state court by Dr Viviane Ghaderi, an AI researcher who says she worked successfully in Amazon's Alexa and LLM teams, and achieved a string of promotions, but claims she was later suddenly demoted and fired following her return to work after giving birth. She is alleging discrimination, retaliation, harassment and wrongful termination, among other claims.
Montana MacLachlan, an Amazon spokesperson, said of the suit: "We do not tolerate discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in our workplace. We investigate any reports of such conduct and take appropriate action against anyone found to have violated our policies.""
#EU#Spain#Copyright#IP#FairUse#NFTs: "The importance of the 11 January 2024 judgment of Barcelona Commercial Court number 9 lies in the fact that it is the first Spanish decision that pronounces on whether the owner of certain works of art is legally allowed to create NFTs from them, without the consent of the copyright holders. However, it does not seem that the doctrine of this judgment can be generalized to other cases; instead, it calls for an assessment to be made on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, it is debatable whether the creation of NFTs can be considered “fair use”, since (i) this generates a “new” public and a new “digital” market for artworks that, to date, only existed in the real world and (ii) it deprives de facto copyright holders of a potential source of income. VEGAP has announced that it has appealed this judgment. Thus, the duel between NFTs and copyright holders was just the first skirmish in a battle that has ended, for the time being, in the NFTs’ favour. We will have to keep an eye out for the second round. Who will be the next victor, the NFTs or the authors? Place your bets!"
The name of late Colombian drug lord Pablo Escobar cannot be registered as an EU trade mark, the European Court of Justice ruled on Wednesday, after his brother tried to lay a claim.The court upheld the decision of the EU's intellectual property office (EUIPO) that refused a trade mark application by Escobar Inc. in 2022....
What were the major things that caused TCP/IP to become the internet standard protocol?
This had to be addressed, with so many people piling on and choosing that the OSI model was replaced by TCP/IP because it worked better and increased in popularity
DARPA Logo Defense Advanced Projects Administration
Okay I thought I'd share this recent post here on the #Fediverse. To give it some context, it's an answer to a common question, often a misunderstanding (even by many knowledgeable folks) as to just how we got here.
There's a lot of apples and oranges here. And everyone had a lot of good points made, but your question is simple, and has a very simple answer. I'll endeavor to address that directly, but do need to tend to some of what has already been said.
Scroll down to the tl;dr for the succinct answer of your question
Ethernet, ARCNET, Token Ring, Thick net (RG-59), Thin net (RG-58 A/U), and UTP (Cat 3, Cat 5, and Cat 6 unshielded twisted pair, Etc.) really have zero bearing on your question insofar as IP is concerned. All of these specifications relate to the definition of technologies that, although are indeed addressed in the OSI model which is indeed very much in use to this day,but are outside the scope of Internet Protocol. I'll come back to this in a minute.
It's quite common to say TCP/IP, but really, it's just IP. For example, we have TCP ports and we have UDP ports in firewalling. i.e., TCP is Transmission Control Protocol and handles the delivery of data in the form of packets. IP handles the routing itself so those messages can arrive to and from the end points. Uniform Data Protocol is another delivery system that does not guarantee arrival but operates on a best effort basis, while TCP is much chattier as it guarantees delivery and retransmission of missed packets - UDP is pretty efficient but in the case of say, a phone call, a packet here and there won't be missed by the human ear.
That's a very simplistic high level-view that will only stand up to the most basic of scrutiny, but this isn't a class on internetworking ;) If you just want to be able to understand conceptually, my definition will suffice.
Networking (LAN) topologies like Token Ring, ARCNET, and Ethernet aren't anywhere in the IP stack, but figure prominently in the OSI stack. I'm not going to go into the details of how these work, or the physical connection methods used like Vampire Taps, Thin net, or twisted pair with RJ-45 terminators, but their relationship will become obvious in a moment.
The OSI model unfolds like so, remember this little mnemonic to keep it straight so you always know:
> People Don't Need To See Paula Abdul
Okay, touched on already, but not really treated, is the description of that little memory aid.
> Physical, Data Link, Network, Transport, Session, Presentation, and Application layers (From bottom to top).
The physical and Data Link layers cover things like the cabling methods described above,and you're probably familiar with MAC Addresses (medium access control) on NICs (network interface controller). These correlate to the first two layers of the OSI stack, namely, the Physical (obvious - you can touch it), and the Data Link layer - how each host's NIC and switches on each LAN segment talk to each other and decide which packets are designated for whom (People Don't).
In software engineering, we're concerned mostly with the Session, Presentation, and Application layers (See Paula Abdul). Detailed explanation of these top three layers is outside the scope of this discussion.
The Beauty of the OSI model is that each layer on one host (or program) talks to exclusively with the same layer of the program or hardware on the other host it is communicating with - or so it believes it is, because, as should be obvious, is has to pass its information down the stack to the next layer below itself, and then when it arrives at the other host, it passes that information back up the stack until it reaches the very top (Abdul) of the stack - the application.
Not all communication involves all of the stacks. At the LAN (Local Area Network) level, we're mostly concerned with the Physical and Data Link layers - we're just trying to get some packet that we aren't concerned about the contents of from one box to another. But that packet probably includes information that goes all the way up the stack.
For instance, NIC #1 has the MAC: 00:b0:d0:63:c2:26 and NIC #2 has a MAC of 00:00:5e:c0:53:af. There's communication between these two NICs over the Ethernet on this LAN segment. One says I have a packet for 00:00:5e:c0:53:af and then two answers and says, "Hey that's me!" Nobody else has that address on the LAN, so they don't answer and stop listening for the payload.
Now for Internet Protocol (IP) and TCP/UDP (Transmission Control Protocol and User Datagram Protocol):
IP corresponds to Layer 3 (Need) - the Network Layer of the **OSI Model.
TCP and UDP correspond to Layer 4 (To) - the Transport Layer of the OSI model.
That covers the entire OSI model and how TCP/IP correspond to it - almost. You're not getting off that easy today.
There's actually a bit of conflation and overlapping there. Just like in real life, it's never that cut and dried. For that, we have the following excellent explanation and drill down thanks to Julia Evans:
Layer 2 (Don't) corresponds to Ethernet.
Layer 3 (Need) corresponds to IP.
Layer 4 (To) corresponds to TCP or UDP (or ICMP etc)
Layer 7 (Abdul) corresponds to whatever is inside the TCP or UDP packet (for example a DNS query)
You may wish to give her page a gander for just a bit more of a deeper dive.
Now let's talk about what might be a bit of a misconception on the part of some, or at least, a bit of a foggy conflation between that of the specification of the OSI model and a Company called Bolt Beranek & Newman (BBN) a government contractor tasked with developing the IP stack networking code.
The TCP/IP you know and depend upon today wasn't written by them, and to suggest that it was the OSI model that was scrapped instead of BBN's product is a bit of a misunderstanding. As you can see from above, the OSI model is very much alive and well, and factors into your everyday life, encompasses software development and communications, device manufacturing and engineering, as well as routing and delivery of information.
This next part is rather opinionated, and the way that many of us choose to remember our history of UNIX, the ARPANET, the NSFnet, and the Internet:
The IP stack you know and use everyday was fathered by Bill Joy, who arrived at UC Berkeley in (IIRC) 1974), created vi because ed just wasn't cutting it when he wanted a full screen editor to write Berkeley UNIX (BSD), including TCP/IP, and co-founded Sun Microsystems (SunOS / Solaris):
> Bill Joy just didn’t feel like this (the BBN code) was as efficient as he could do if he did it himself. And so Joy just rewrote it. Here the stuff was delivered to him, he said, “That’s a bunch of junk,” and he redid it. There was no debate at all. He just unilaterally redid it.
Because UNIX was hitherto an AT&T product, and because government contracting has always been rife with interminable vacillating and pontificating, BBN never actually managed to produce code for the the IP stack that could really be relied upon. In short, it kinda sucked. Bad.
So! You've decided to scroll down and skip all of the other stuff to get the straight dope on the answer to your question. Here it is:
> What were the major things that caused TCP/IP to become the internet standard protocol?
The ARPANET (and where I worked, what was to become specifically the MILNET portion of that) had a mandate to replace NCP (Network Control Protocol) with IP (Internet Protocol). We did a dry run and literally over two thirds of the Internet (ARPANET) at that time disappeared, because people are lazy, software has bugs, you name it. There were lots of reasons. But that only lasted the better part of a day for the most part.
At that time the ARPANET really only consisted of Universities, big Defense contractors and U.S. Military facilities. Now, if you'll do a bit of digging around, you'll discover that there was really no such thing as NCP - that is, for the most part, what the film industry refers to as a retcon, meaning that we, as an industry, retroactively went back and came up with a way to explain away replacing a protocol that didn't really exist - a backstory, if you will. Sure, there was NCP, it was mostly a kludge of heterogeneous management and communications programs that varied from system to system, site to site, with several commonalities and inconsistencies that were hobbled together with bailing twine, coat hangers, and duct tape (for lack of a better metaphor).
So we really, really, needed something as uniform and ubiquitous as the promise that Internet Protocol would deliver. Because Bill Joy and others had done so much work at UC Berkeley, we actually had 4.1BSD (4.1a) to work with on our DEC machinery. As a junior member of my division, in both age and experience, I was given the task of, let's say throwing the switch on some of our machines, so to speak, when we cut over from the NCP spaghetti and henceforth embraced TCP/IP no matter what, on Flag Day - 01 January 1983.
So you see,the adoption of Internet Protocol was not a de facto occurrence - it was de jure, a government mandate to occur at a specific time on a specific day.
It literally had nothing to do with popularity or some kind of organic adoption, the erroneously described, so-called demise of the OSI model, or any physical network topology.
DARPA said 01 January 1983 and that's it, and that was it - Flag Day.
Sure, it took a few days for several facilities to come up (anyone not running IP was summarily and unceremoniously cut off from the ARPANET).
And one also needs to consider that it wasn't every machine - we only had some machines that were Internet hosts. We still had a lot of mainframes and mini computers, etc., that were interconnected within our facilities in a hodgepodge or some other fashion. Nowadays we have a tendency to be somewhat incredulous if every device doesn't directly connect over IP to the Internet in some way. That wasn't the case back then - you passed traffic internally, sometimes by unmounting tapes from one machine and mounting them on another.
There was a lot of hand wringing, stress, boatloads of frustration, and concern by people over keeping their jobs all over the world. But that's why and when it happened. Six months later in the UNIX portions of networks we had much greater stability with the release of 4.2BSD, but it wouldn't really be until a few years later Net2 was released that things settled down with the virtually flawless networking stability that we enjoy today.
Okay I thought I'd share this recent post here on the #Fediverse. To give it some context, it's an answer to a common question, often a misunderstanding (even by many knowledgeable folks) as to just how we got here.
There's a lot of apples and oranges here. And everyone had a lot of good points made, but your question is simple, and has a very simple answer. I'll endeavor to address that directly, but do need to tend to some of what has already been said.
Scroll down to the tl;dr for the succinct answer of your question
Ethernet, ARCNET, Token Ring, Thick net (RG-59), Thin net (RG-58 A/U), and UTP (Cat 3, Cat 5, and Cat 6 unshielded twisted pair, Etc.) really have zero bearing on your question insofar as IP is concerned. All of these specifications relate to the definition of technologies that, although are indeed addressed in the OSI model which is indeed very much in use to this day,but are outside the scope of Internet Protocol. I'll come back to this in a minute.
It's quite common to say TCP/IP, but really, it's just IP. For example, we have TCP ports and we have UDP ports in firewalling. i.e., TCP is Transmission Control Protocol and handles the delivery of data in the form of packets. IP handles the routing itself so those messages can arrive to and from the end points. Uniform Data Protocol is another delivery system that does not guarantee arrival but operates on a best effort basis, while TCP is much chattier as it guarantees delivery and retransmission of missed packets - UDP is pretty efficient but in the case of say, a phone call, a packet here and there won't be missed by the human ear.
That's a very simplistic high level-view that will only stand up to the most basic of scrutiny, but this isn't a class on internetworking ;) If you just want to be able to understand conceptually, my definition will suffice.
Networking (LAN) topologies like Token Ring, ARCNET, and Ethernet aren't anywhere in the IP stack, but figure prominently in the OSI stack. I'm not going to go into the details of how these work, or the physical connection methods used like Vampire Taps, Thin net, or twisted pair with RJ-45 terminators, but their relationship will become obvious in a moment.
The OSI model unfolds like so, remember this little mnemonic to keep it straight so you always know:
> People Don't Need To See Paula Abdul
Okay, touched on already, but not really treated, is the description of that little memory aid.
> Physical, Data Link, Network, Transport, Session, Presentation, and Application layers (From bottom to top).
The physical and Data Link layers cover things like the cabling methods described above,and you're probably familiar with MAC Addresses (medium access control) on NICs (network interface controller). These correlate to the first two layers of the OSI stack, namely, the Physical (obvious - you can touch it), and the Data Link layer - how each host's NIC and switches on each LAN segment talk to each other and decide which packets are designated for whom (People Don't).
In software engineering, we're concerned mostly with the Session, Presentation, and Application layers (See Paula Abdul). Detailed explanation of these top three layers is outside the scope of this discussion.
The Beauty of the OSI model is that each layer on one host (or program) talks to exclusively with the same layer of the program or hardware on the other host it is communicating with - or so it believes it is, because, as should be obvious, is has to pass its information down the stack to the next layer below itself, and then when it arrives at the other host, it passes that information back up the stack until it reaches the very top (Abdul) of the stack - the application.
Not all communication involves all of the stacks. At the LAN (Local Area Network) level, we're mostly concerned with the Physical and Data Link layers - we're just trying to get some packet that we aren't concerned about the contents of from one box to another. But that packet probably includes information that goes all the way up the stack.
For instance, NIC #1 has the MAC: 00:b0:d0:63:c2:26 and NIC #2 has a MAC of 00:00:5e:c0:53:af. There's communication between these two NICs over the Ethernet on this LAN segment. One says I have a packet for 00:00:5e:c0:53:af and then two answers and says, "Hey that's me!" Nobody else has that address on the LAN, so they don't answer and stop listening for the payload.
Now for Internet Protocol (IP) and TCP/UDP (Transmission Control Protocol and User Datagram Protocol):
IP corresponds to Layer 3 (Need) - the Network Layer of the **OSI Model.
TCP and UDP correspond to Layer 4 (To) - the Transport Layer of the OSI model.
That covers the entire OSI model and how TCP/IP correspond to it - almost. You're not getting off that easy today.
There's actually a bit of conflation and overlapping there. Just like in real life, it's never that cut and dried. For that, we have the following excellent explanation and drill down thanks to Julia Evans:
Layer 2 (Don't) corresponds to Ethernet.
Layer 3 (Need) corresponds to IP.
Layer 4 (To) corresponds to TCP or UDP (or ICMP etc)
Layer 7 (Abdul) corresponds to whatever is inside the TCP or UDP packet (for example a DNS query)
You may wish to give her page a gander for just a bit more of a deeper dive.
Now let's talk about what might be a bit of a misconception on the part of some, or at least, a bit of a foggy conflation between that of the specification of the OSI model and a Company called Bolt Beranek & Newman (BBN) a government contractor tasked with developing the IP stack networking code.
The TCP/IP you know and depend upon today wasn't written by them, and to suggest that it was the OSI model that was scrapped instead of BBN's product is a bit of a misunderstanding. As you can see from above, the OSI model is very much alive and well, and factors into your everyday life, encompasses software development and communications, device manufacturing and engineering, as well as routing and delivery of information.
This next part is rather opinionated, and the way that many of us choose to remember our history of UNIX, the ARPANET, the NSFnet, and the Internet:
The IP stack you know and use everyday was fathered by Bill Joy, who arrived at UC Berkeley in (IIRC) 1974), created vi because ed just wasn't cutting it when he wanted a full screen editor to write Berkeley UNIX (BSD), including TCP/IP, and co-founded Sun Microsystems (SunOS / Solaris):
> Bill Joy just didn’t feel like this (the BBN code) was as efficient as he could do if he did it himself. And so Joy just rewrote it. Here the stuff was delivered to him, he said, “That’s a bunch of junk,” and he redid it. There was no debate at all. He just unilaterally redid it.
Because UNIX was hitherto an AT&T product, and because government contracting has always been rife with interminable vacillating and pontificating, BBN never actually managed to produce code for the the IP stack that could really be relied upon. In short, it kinda sucked. Bad.
So! You've decided to scroll down and skip all of the other stuff to get the straight dope on the answer to your question. Here it is:
> What were the major things that caused TCP/IP to become the internet standard protocol?
The ARPANET (and where I worked, what was to become specifically the MILNET portion of that) had a mandate to replace NCP (Network Control Protocol) with IP (Internet Protocol). We did a dry run and literally over two thirds of the Internet (ARPANET) at that time disappeared, because people are lazy, software has bugs, you name it. There were lots of reasons. But that only lasted the better part of a day for the most part.
At that time the ARPANET really only consisted of Universities, big Defense contractors and U.S. Military facilities. Now, if you'll do a bit of digging around, you'll discover that there was really no such thing as NCP - that is, for the most part, what the film industry refers to as a retcon, meaning that we, as an industry, retroactively went back and came up with a way to explain away replacing a protocol that didn't really exist - a backstory, if you will. Sure, there was NCP, it was mostly a kludge of heterogeneous management and communications programs that varied from system to system, site to site, with several commonalities and inconsistencies that were hobbled together with bailing twine, coat hangers, and duct tape (for lack of a better metaphor).
So we really, really, needed something as uniform and ubiquitous as the promise that Internet Protocol would deliver. Because Bill Joy and others had done so much work at UC Berkeley, we actually had 4.1BSD (4.1a) to work with on our DEC machinery. As a junior member of my division, in both age and experience, I was given the task of, let's say throwing the switch on some of our machines, so to speak, when we cut over from the NCP spaghetti and henceforth embraced TCP/IP no matter what, on Flag Day - 01 January 1983.
So you see,the adoption of Internet Protocol was not a de facto occurrence - it was de jure, a government mandate to occur at a specific time on a specific day.
It literally had nothing to do with popularity or some kind of organic adoption, the erroneously described, so-called demise of the OSI model, or any physical network topology.
DARPA said 01 January 1983 and that's it, and that was it - Flag Day.
Sure, it took a few days for several facilities to come up (anyone not running IP was summarily and unceremoniously cut off from the ARPANET).
And one also needs to consider that it wasn't every machine - we only had some machines that were Internet hosts. We still had a lot of mainframes and mini computers, etc., that were interconnected within our facilities in a hodgepodge or some other fashion. Nowadays we have a tendency to be somewhat incredulous if every device doesn't directly connect over IP to the Internet in some way. That wasn't the case back then - you passed traffic internally, sometimes by unmounting tapes from one machine and mounting them on another.
There was a lot of hand wringing, stress, boatloads of frustration, and concern by people over keeping their jobs all over the world. But that's why and when it happened. Six months later in the UNIX portions of networks we had much greater stability with the release of 4.2BSD, but it wouldn't really be until a few years later Net2 was released that things settled down with the virtually flawless networking stability that we enjoy today.
People trying to train AIs are now complaining that all of the AI data on the internet are making it hard for them to get quality training sets of natural language and images.
@futurebird The main players have a big advantage, #Google can already detect #AI#content because they have been training #algorithms for so long the small players don't have that advantage. I would suggest using data from before #ChatGPT became popular with end-consumers. The good thing for small AI companies is, they don't get Robot.txt & #Ip blocked (i think >15% of major sites are blocking main AI scrapers) so they still have access to those data pools which are also guaranteed not to be AI
I own the #copyright for the lectures I give to college students, but for some reason the #FBI has not yet contacted me with offers to prosecute anyone recording all or portions of my lectures without my written permission. I'm seriously considering putting an FBI warning at the beginning of every lecture. I think it might start good conversations about whose interests the cops choose to protect in American society.
#AI#GenerativeAI#AITraining#Music#USA#Copyright#IP: "Representative Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced new legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday (April 9) which, if passed, would require AI companies to disclose which copyrighted works were used to train their models, or face a financial penalty. Called the Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act, the new bill would apply to both new models and retroactively to previously released and used generative AI systems.
The bill requires that a full list of copyrighted works in an AI model’s training data set be filed with the Copyright Office no later than 30 days before the model becomes available to consumers. This would also be required when the training data set for an existing model is altered in a significant manner. Financial penalties for non-compliance would be determined on a case-by-case basis by the Copyright Office, based on factors like the company’s history of noncompliance and the company’s size." https://www.billboard.com/business/legal/federal-bill-ai-training-require-disclosure-songs-used-1235651089/
#AI#GenerativeAI#AITraining#Copyright#FairUse#IP#DataCommons#Books: "This paper is a snapshot of an idea that is as underexplored as it is rooted in decades of existing work. The concept of mass digitization of books, including to support text and data mining, of which AI is a subset, is not new. But AI training is newly of the zeitgeist, and its transformative use makes questions about how we digitize, preserve, and make accessible knowledge and cultural heritage salient in a distinct way.
As such, efforts to build a books data commons need not start from scratch; there is much to glean from studying and engaging existing and previous efforts. Those learnings might inform substantive decisions about how to build a books data commons for AI training. For instance, looking at the design decisions of HathiTrust may inform how the technical infrastructure and data management practices for AI training might be designed, as well as how to address challenges to building a comprehensive, diverse, and useful corpus. In addition, learnings might inform the process by which we get to a books data commons — for example, illustrating ways to attend to the interests of those likely to be impacted by the dataset’s development." https://openfuture.pubpub.org/pub/towards-a-book-data-commons-for-ai-training/release/1
#AI#GenerativeAI#EU#AIAct#Copyright#AITraining#IP#FairUse: "Scarcely a day goes by without news of exciting breakthroughs in the world of AI. In the face of disruptive waves of technological change and mounting uncertainty, the law cannot help but take on an “experimental” character, with lawmakers and lawyers often caught on the back foot, struggling to keep up with the sweeping winds of change. But whatever the next steps may be, one thing is certain: litigation surrounding generative AI marks an important crossroads, and whichever path we choose is likely to shape the future of the technology. The rising litigation around generative AI is not targeting image by image or specific excerpts of infringing texts produced by AI models. Rather, the whole technique behind the system is hanging in the balance.
Another key takeaway that merits attention relates to the fragmentary landscape of copyright that seems to be unfolding in the wake of the rapid advances in AI technology. Although the emerging European legal framework offers strict rules yet solid ground for AI technology to flourish on the continent, it’s worth wondering what will happen if the “Brussels effect” fails to reach the shores the other side of the Atlantic and the use of copyrighted works for training purposes is found to be transformative fair use in common law jurisdictions, while a relevant portion of these works are opted-out of AI models on European soil. That would mark a yawning gap between two copyright regimes, opening a new chapter in this old tale and potentially disadvantaging would-be European generative AI providers." https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2024/04/08/the-stubborn-memory-of-generative-ai-overfitting-fair-use-and-the-ai-act/
Just a brief reminder that every #AWS VM/container/etc you give a public #IPv4#IP address to now costs you $3.65/month more than in 2023. AWS charges per IP-address per-hour.
Many maintain that their broad use of copyrighted material is legal under the doctrine of "fair use," which courts apply using a complex four-part standard.
However, as Giordano notes, "the public status of copyrighted material" is not one of those factors.
A decade ago, the Google Books decision held that Google's use of "text snippets" to catalogue published works was an acceptable fair use, and AI companies often point to Google's win to back their argument.
The second argument is that copyright is not an issue in AI training because AI systems don't copy material: They just "learn" from it the way a human might.
Reality check: AI companies often refuse to say which "publicly available" data they are using, with OpenAI and others describing their sources as a competitive trade secret."
Never enter any information that would qualify as a trade secret into an AI chat bot, regardless of what the terms of service of the chat bot provides.
#AI#GenerativeAI#Music#Suno#Copyright#IP: "Suno claims that its platform enables “anyone to make great music”. This is typically achieved via ChatGPT-style text prompts, or by users inputting lyrics. Suno then generates melodies, harmonies, and/or complete compositions based on these cues.
Another reason Suno is big news? Late last year, Microsoft announced a partnership with Suno, via which users of Microsoft’s Copilot can use the Suno software to create music.
Unsurprisingly, Ed Newton-Rex has been spending a fair amount of time with Suno of late. He’s been left intrigued by the platform’s output which, he says, appears to be directly, ahem, inspired by some of the biggest musical stars in history.
#TikToks Daten-Dilemma: Zwischen Innovation u. Überwachung..
.. Datenstaubsauger biblischen Ausmaßes“, der nicht nur auf Basis von Geräte- und Netzwerkinformationen, sondern auch über #SIM-Karten u #IP-Adressen Standortdaten seiner Nutzer sammelt.
@cassis Tu te rapelles notre conversation sur le #DHCP et les appareils en #statiques avec des adresses #IP dans la plage #dhcp
Devine le lièvre que je viens de lever...
Best SEO Tools for SEO Experts & Consultants (checkbytools.com)
Use the 150+ free marketing tools to find the website issues and fix them for a better visibility.
European court rules drug lord Pablo Escabar's name can not be trademarked (www.reuters.com)
The name of late Colombian drug lord Pablo Escobar cannot be registered as an EU trade mark, the European Court of Justice ruled on Wednesday, after his brother tried to lay a claim.The court upheld the decision of the EU's intellectual property office (EUIPO) that refused a trade mark application by Escobar Inc. in 2022....