With a word to the wise:
"any time a company gives you a hard-sell to order via its apps rather than its storefronts or its website, you should assume you're getting twiddled, hard."
#Copyright#IP#CircularEconomy#Upcycling#Environment#Sustainability#HumanRights: "As the environmental crisis escalates due to overproduction and overconsumption, there is an increasing recognition of the urgent need for environmental consciousness and a shift towards a sustainable, circular economy (see, in the intellectual property context, Pihlajarinne & Ballardini (2020), Senftleben (2023), Calboli (2024)). Upcycling, notably, which involves reworking old items or their parts into new ones, has emerged as a tangible effort to address the negative impacts of this crisis. However, copyright protection may unexpectedly clash with this sustainable practice, as certain upcycled items could include copyrighted prints, ornaments, or design patterns from the original materials, such as new clothing items made out of old bed sheets, curtains, or tablecloths, or jewellery made from broken porcelain." https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2024/05/30/copyright-upcycling-and-the-human-right-to-environmental-protection/
#AI#GenerativeAI#Copyright#IP: "Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to augment and democratize creativity. However, it is undermining the knowledge ecosystem that now sustains it. Generative AI may unfairly compete with creatives, displacing them in the market. Most AI firms are not compensating creative workers for composing the songs, drawing the images, and writing both the fiction and non-fiction books that their models need in order to function. AI thus threatens not only to undermine the livelihoods of authors, artists, and other creatives, but also to destabilize the very knowledge ecosystem it relies on.
Alarmed by these developments, many copyright owners have objected to the use of their works by AI providers. To recognize and empower their demands to stop non-consensual use of their works, we propose a streamlined opt-out mechanism that would require AI providers to remove objectors’ works from their databases once copyright infringement has been documented. Those who do not object still deserve compensation for the use of their work by AI providers. We thus also propose a levy on AI providers, to be distributed to the copyright owners whose work they use without a license. This scheme is designed to ensure creatives receive a fair share of the economic bounty arising out of their contributions to AI. Together these mechanisms of consent and compensation would result in a new grand bargain between copyright owners and AI firms, designed to ensure both thrive in the long-term."
Sony Music is the prototype of the company that uses artists as mere puppets for getting the only thing it really wants: free money extracted through IP rents. It's a parasite that doesn't contribute at all to the promotion of arts and science.
#Sony#SonyMusic#AI#GenerativeAI#AITraining#Copyright#IP: "Sony Music is sending warning letters to more than 700 artificial intelligence developers and music streaming services globally in the latest salvo in the music industry’s battle against tech groups ripping off artists.
The Sony Music letter, which has been seen by the Financial Times, expressly prohibits AI developers from using its music — which includes artists such as Harry Styles, Adele and Beyoncé — and opts out of any text and data mining of any of its content for any purposes such as training, developing or commercialising any AI system.
Sony Music is sending the letter to companies developing AI systems including OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, Suno and Udio, according to those close to the group.
The world’s second-largest music group is also sending separate letters to streaming platforms, including Spotify and Apple, asking them to adopt “best practice” measures to protect artists and songwriters and their music from scraping, mining and training by AI developers without consent or compensation. It has asked them to update their terms of service, making it clear that mining and training on its content is not permitted.
#AI#AITraining#Copyright#GenerativeAI#IP#Creativity#Art: "Creating an individual bargainable copyright over training will not improve the material conditions of artists' lives – all it will do is change the relative shares of the value we create, shifting some of that value from tech companies that hate us and want us to starve to entertainment companies that hate us and want us to starve.
As an artist, I'm foursquare against anything that stands in the way of making art. As an artistic worker, I'm entirely committed to things that help workers get a fair share of the money their work creates, feed their families and pay their rent.
I think today's AI art is bad, and I think tomorrow's AI art will probably be bad, but even if you disagree (with either proposition), I hope you'll agree that we should be focused on making sure art is legal to make and that artists get paid for it.
Just because copyright won't fix the creative labor market, it doesn't follow that nothing will. If we're worried about labor issues, we can look to labor law to improve our conditions."
#OpenAI#ChatGPT#Copyright#IP#Reddit: "OpenAI, a company that has indiscriminately scraped the internet and vast amounts of knowledge and creative works created by humans to build a company valued at roughly $80 billion, has made what Reddit described as a copyright complaint against the ChatGPT subreddit because it uses OpenAI’s logo.
Moderators of the subreddit posted a screenshot of a message that they said they had received from Reddit. The message reads “Hello Mods, We have received a copyright complaint from openai.com alleging unauthorized use of their copyrighted logos in r/ChatGPT. The 'subreddit profile image' does make use of the copyrighted content, which can lead to user confusion: please address the unauthorized copyrighted elements by May 16.” The message goes on to say that the moderators need to remove the OpenAI logo from the subreddit profile and reply to Reddit confirming that the logo has been removed." https://www.404media.co/openai-files-copyright-claim-against-chatgpt-subreddit/
"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."
@nosat
If you had a single shred of evidence to present, we might have discussed it and learned something from each other. But as I expected, you have nothing to offer but - in the immortal words of the Bard - sound and fury, signifying nothing.
#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!"
RT @glynmoody
Join 28,000+ to show your support for the @internetarchive, libraries’ digital rights, and an open internet with safe, uncensored access to knowledge. - https://battleforlibraries.com "Big publishers are suing to cut off libraries’ ownership and control of digital books." #copyright
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.