@jeffjarvis Another clear demonstration that copyright is censorship.
“That unaired footage is Fox’s confidential intellectual property; Fox did not consent to its distribution or publication; and Fox does not consent to its further distribution or publication.”
Just so I understand: #Disney, who've spent millions of $ over the years changing US #copyright laws to ensure that anyone using their work has to pay fees every time they use it (in perpetuity), don't want to pay the writers fees for the moneymaking work they create for Disney every time Disney uses it (in perpetuity)? #residuals #wgastrike #pencilsdown
Just so I understand: #Disney, who've spent millions of $ over the years changing US #copyright laws to ensure that anyone using their work has to pay fees every time they use it (in perpetuity), don't want to pay the writers fees for the moneymaking work they create for Disney every time Disney uses it (in perpetuity)? #residuals #wgastrike #pencilsdown
"Tyler Ochoa [#law professor at Santa Clara University] said the #copyright issues with #AI#text generation are exactly the same as the issues with AI #image generation. First: is copying large amounts of [copyrighted] text or images for training the model #FairUse? The answer to that, he said, is probably yes. Second: if the model generates output that's too similar to the input…is that copyright infringement? The answer to that, he said, is almost certainly yes." https://www.theregister.com/2023/05/03/openai_chatgpt_copyright/
Chronicles Revisited Podcast 6 — Osborne's Last Stand
Adam Osborne made a name for himself in the 1970s as one of the first successful authors and publishers of computer books. After selling his publishing company to McGraw-Hill, Osborne launched a computer hardware manufacturer, which produced the famous Osborne-1 portable microcomputer. When that business collapsed in 1983, Osborne shifted to software with his third and final venture, Paperback Software International. Unfortunately, Osborne’s decision to copy a competitor’s menu design for his own program proved his undoing after a lengthy lawsuit that proved a critical moment in the evolving legal battle over software copyrights.
I got a letter from my #isp on behalf of some porn company that I was #torrent ing #copyright content. I habe a seedbox for #linux ISOs and whenever I torrent on my PC i use a #vpn and i don't download illegal content. What do I do?
Not all countries are handling A.I. copyright the same way; this is only a resource for how the U.S. Copyright Office is currently handling, and is subject to change as further cases and laws are resolved and enacted.
The U.S. has a human authorship requirement for copyright eligibility--prior rulings included that "divine revelations" could not be protected by copyright and neither could a photograph taken by a monkey.
Given the current state of generative A.I., US Copyright Office guidance states that anything generated by A.I. machines alone is ineligible for copyright protection.
Copyright protection only extends to those sufficiently creative, human-authored elements such as selection and compilation of text and A.I.-generated images or the edited elements of A.I.-generated images.
Creators must disclose which portions of a work were generated by A.I. and which portions were human-authored when applying for copyright registration--or else risk voiding the registration.
Help build or support a shadow library that isn't on some white libertarian nonsense
Then people don't have to use the above two
Destroy the multinational corporate behemoths behind the lawsuit
(Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, John Wiley & Sons, and Penguin Random House)
Overthrow the illegitimate government which issued the ruling
Fascist police states built on slavery & genocide are bad, actually