So, licenses for everything?

Anyway, we hold the person accountable who does (or rarely does not) do something, not the owner of a thing. Which is why a libel accusation makes 0 sense here.

If creating text is like shooting bullets, we should require a license for text editors.

PSA:

DNS censorship is standard procedure in European copyright enforcement. Since Quad9 made the unfortunate decision to establish itself in Europe, it is forced to obey.

For example: https://www.quad9.net/fr/news/press/quad9-faces-new-dns-censorship-legal-challenge-in-france-from-canal/

YSK that scientists, engineers, and mathematicians are not paid for the knowledge they create. The knowledge is public domain.

When they publish articles, they typically transfer the copyright to the publisher, which is why they will happily assist you in pirating articles.

Patents are public with the express purpose that others may learn from them. Only the actual use of an invention requires permission. Even that lasts only 20 years rather than 100+ years as is the case with copyrights.

So, this quote is not an explanation of any problems. It is (probably deliberately) misleading. Researchers will not receive any license fees. Rather, these fees will subtract from research budgets.

That’s an evergreen. Tried and trusty.

By “society”? That’s what NSFW labels are all about. Even the expression is a nonsense euphemism. (You’d think that any not work related websites would be “nsfw”.) Anything to do with the mechanics of human reproduction is taboo. In practice, that’s 90% depictions of feminine bodies.

Of course, there is more to it than that. For example, in Germany, until last year, it was illegal to “advertise” abortions. In practice, that meant that doctors were prosecuted for providing information on the web.

Interesting in light of the recent lawsuit filed in France. Meta’s lawyers apparently don’t believe it has merit. They are probably right on that.

Still, there is an unavoidable risk from unclear regulations. They obviously feel that reaching European users is worth it. I wonder why.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute

Yes, the PETA part of that is pretty much the same. It was an attempt to get legal personhood for a non-human being.

you have to also be able to defend

You’re thinking of trademark law. Copyright only requires a modicum of creativity and is automatic.

What does that mean? Presumably, all animals with a brain have that quality, including humans. Can the quality be lost without destruction of the brain, ie before brain death? What about animals without a brain, like insects? What about life forms without a nervous system, like slime mold or even single amoeba?

Can’t read the whole article, but it sounds like copyright violations. Exchanging the face is really not enough

As to depicting people with Down-Syndrome: Nothing illegal about that. We can only hope that Trump outlaws forced diversity soon. Seriously, someone who’s outraged that marginalized groups are depicted in the same way as other groups, probably isn’t particularly supportive of that group.

For what it’s worth, while most people with Down-Syndrome can’t function in society without assistance, some have even graduated from college. There’d probably be more college graduates if it wasn’t for the stereotypes.

If AI ever reached Data levels of intelligence, Millett suggested that copyright laws could shift to grant copyrights to AI-authored works.

The implication is that legal rights depend on intelligence. I find that troubling.

The terminator has passed over North America, illuminating the entire continent in the eerie light of a thermonuclear explosion. People report suffering radiation burns from unshielded exposure.

It’s never effective. At best, you could make the argument that a certain person lacks the wherewithal to have manipulated a signature, or gotten someone else to do it. One has to hope that the marketing BS does not convince courts to assign undue weight to forged evidence.

Sort of. A camera with internet connectivity could automatically “notarize” photos. The signing authority would vouch that the photo (or other file) hasn’t been altered since the moment of signing. It wouldn’t be evidence that the photo was not manipulated before that moment.

That could make, EG, photos of a traffic accident good evidence in court. If there wasn’t time to for manipulation, then the photos must be real. It wouldn’t work for photos that could have been taken at any time.

You could upload a hash to the blockchain of a cryptocurrency for the same purpose. The integrity of the cryptocurrency would then vouch that the photo was unaltered since the upload. But that’s not cost-effective. You could even upload the hash to Reddit, since it’s not believable that they would manipulate timestamps to help some random guy somewhere in the world commit fraud.

Don’t really see the problem. If you pick up the content while web crawling, you will end up with a lot of duplicates, but that’s normal. If you wanted to scrape the Fediverse in particular, you’d know the structure of the data.

I wonder why Bluesky bothers. The reaction was predictable.

Bitch with a Pearl Earring. Is that your fursona? I don’t get it.

1. This is exactly the intended purpose of fair use. Look up the copyright clause.

2. Small creators are the biggest beneficiaries of this. They would have to pay the extortionate licensing fees.

You can read the IA’s take on these issues here: https://blog.archive.org/2023/11/02/internet-archive-submits-comments-on-copyright-and-artificial-intelligence/

Their take is quite different from the sentiment that seems to prevail in this community.

GDPR is not copyright, despite all similarities. I assume that you accept that copyright does not work like that, since you are changing the subject.

Note that the GDPR does not claim to be applicable in third countries; ie outside the territory where EU law is enforced. It only seeks to regulate dealings of outside parties with people in the EU. Even that can’t be practically enforced, usually. Once data leaves the EU, there isn’t much EU governments can do about it, which is why the GDPR has serious rules about data transfers to third countries. (That’s a problem for the fediverse.)