General_Effort

joined 2 years ago
[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 point 7 hours ago

And how does that work legally?

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 0 points 7 hours ago

I think you are just not making any sense.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 point 8 hours ago (1 child)

Hmm. Maybe but it is not the same problem as those discussed in OP. I also have some doubts about the paper, but that's another story. You could try it out?

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 0 points 10 hours ago (4 children)

Uh. So... Prosecuting bad. Not prosecuting those who do not cooperate with the prosecutors also bad because hypocrisy.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 point 10 hours ago (3 children)

I think if any other (smaller) site were continually posting CSAM without moderation, it would be banned.

On what legal grounds would that happen?

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world -4 points 10 hours ago (6 children)

Uh. You do understand that this law breaking includes not cracking down hard enough on illegal content? Like that Hamas slogan?

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

I don't think you can do literally the same thing on the Epstein files. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you have in mind.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 5 points 21 hours ago (5 children)

There were reports of people trying to unredact the files almost immediately.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago

The background is that French law requires ISPs to retain the IPs of their customer for some time. That way, an IP address can be associated with a customer.

If I download music in a Starbucks, can they fine the Starbucks CEO then?

A CEO is an employee. You generally can't sue employees for this sort of thing. It may be possible to sue the company as a whole for enabling the copyright infringement, but that's not to do with this case. Perhaps in the future, operators of WiFi-hotspots will be required to use something like Youtube's Content ID system.

Anyway I hope I hope online artists, and authors are able to use this to sue AI companies for stealing their copyrighted works.

They can use this to go after "pirates". It's got nothing to do with AI.

 

The key problem is that copyright infringement by a private individual is regarded by the court as something so serious that it negates the right to privacy. It’s a sign of the twisted values that copyright has succeeded on imposing on many legal systems. It equates the mere copying of a digital file with serious crimes that merit a prison sentence, an evident absurdity.

This is a good example of how copyright’s continuing obsession with ownership and control of digital material is warping the entire legal system in the EU. What was supposed to be simply a fair way of rewarding creators has resulted in a monstrous system of routine government surveillance carried out on hundreds of millions of innocent people just in case they copy a digital file.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

So true.

This talking point, too, is so infuriatingly silly:

I mean yes I know you’re going to say socialism is about workers getting fair pay

Workers, by definition, don't own what they produce. Copyrights are intellectual property; business capital. Somehow, capitalists are workers in the minds of these people. This is your mind on trickle-down economics.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

I think, in the short run, some have reason to worry about their skills. AI does make digital skills more important and manual drawing skills less so.

OTOH, I don't think it's reasonable to worry about styles. Go to aliexpress or some such place and look for paintings. They offer cheap "handmade" paintings and replicas of famos works. They don't offer novel paintings in someone else's style. I don't believe there is any demand for that.

view more: next ›