I don’t see how this fair use case is different from those in the past. There’s a tech company defending. Organizations like the EFF or the Internet Archive issue supporting statements.

I don’t see the hypocrisy. The content industry is suing tech companies now just like they have in the past, and just like they sue individuals now and in the past.

If I had to guess at the cause of the difference, I’d say that there is a lot of money being spent on social media PR. But perhaps it also is a result of the right-ward shift of society. I wonder how much that has to do with propaganda by the content industry.

For just a few minutes, while reading this, it felt like the good old times.

Trademarks have valid uses but they, too, are perverted. Think about luxury goods. The purpose of the brand name is simply to signal that the owner is able to afford the brand. These brands have nothing to do with consumer protection.

I consider them parasitic. Whatever utility someone gets from signalling with an exclusive brand is provided by society, not the company.

The public domain is not just useful but unavoidable and necessary.

You could imagine a world where all available physical matter is owned property. But intellectual property is an arbitrary legal creation. It is not finite.

EG Trademark law. Only the owner of a mark may use it to trade. The mark proclaims who is responsible for a product. If there were no unowned trademarks, you could not start a business without first paying off some owner. This would clearly be economically disastrous. So having unused, potential trademarks is necessary.

EG Patent law. Only the patent owner may use a certain invention; some trick of doing something. The patent is published so that others may learn from it and perhaps come up with other ways of achieving the same end. After (usually) 20 years, everyone may use the invention. Scientific theories, mathematical theorems, and other such things are always public domain.

If patents were broader and/or lasted for longer, you’d eventually not be able to do much business without having to pay off some owner. The owners could basically demand a tax on any kind of economic activity and deny consent for anything that might threaten their status. Progress would grind to a halt. It would be a new kind of feudalism.

So, a public domain is not just useful but absolutely necessary to our civilization.

Anything could be made into intellectual property. For example tax farming in ancient Rome and elsewhere. Monarchs granted special privileges, such as granting the East India Company a monopoly on trade. Or they might grant some person the monopoly on opening coffee houses in the country or a certain city. A title of nobility could be seen as a kind of intellectual property. Such titles were traded in a limited way. Anything that can be allowed or forbidden by the government could be turned into intellectual property.

Marine Le Pen isn’t the first prominent French politician to be disqualified from public office. Since it stopped being automatic, it has already affected big names such as like her father, Nicolas Sarkozy, Jacques Chirac, Charles Pasqua, and Bernard Tapie.

This isn’t exclusive to right-wing politicians; the disqualification penalty has been imposed by French justice on several dozens of elected officials and public representatives since 1992. It was in 1992 that the concept was introduced into French law. It was even applied automatically for a series of offences until a reform in 2010. Since then, it’s a standalone penalty that must be decided on by a judge. It can last up to 5 years for an offence and 10 years for a crime. Here is a small selection of well-known male and female politicians who have been sentenced to this penalty (listed alphabetically).

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/sarkozy-tapie-le-pen-famous-cases-of-ineligibility-in-france/ar-AA1C01vk

I should add that the FFmpeg team is quite proud of the fact that they write in C and Assembly for peak performance. They mention it a lot, and so they did here.

I mean, howany people are you really going “to get” with this?

Depends what you are looking for. They want to use this to find “child porn”, meaning any nudes of people under 18. How careful are horny teens going to be when they exchange nude selfies? Would a 13yo even know to be careful?

A dbzer0 user agitating against Fair Use? You a narc or something?

It’s a genuine xeet(?).

That’s not correct. There are other forms of IP besides copyright, such as trademarks, patents, or even trade secrets.

What you are saying is somewhat true for US copyrights (and patents) per the copyright clause in the US Constitution. But mind that typically copyrights are owned by the employer of the creator, who may be a writer, even a programmer, photographer, or any other such professional who may not be considered an “artist”.

You would probably not consider yourself an artist for writing comments here, but you get copyright nevertheless.

European copyright has a very different philosophy behind it, which does not consider the public at all. It’s quite harmful to the public, actually.

The EU has funded a bunch of such little portals for various things but no one uses them. There are also portals to share code made for/by some european governments, like France, Germany, Netherlands, and some others.

That was a deepfake. They did a dirty on him.

nes game programmers

Were these guys even Real Programmers?

Here’s a great talk by a guy who worked on a 1982 game for the Atari 2600, a game console first released in 1977. It’s a fascinating insight into the early evolution of computing. They didn’t work around limitations. They used a machine to do whatever it could.

If anyone has ever wondered by what standard C is a high-level language, this is for you. Or if you want to know how we ever could have developed something to connect the abstract logic of some algorithm with some glowing pixels on a screen.

Pitfall Classic Postmortem With David Crane Panel at GDC 2011 (Atari 2600)

There’s an ancient myth that a god created the first pair of tongs. Tongs need to be forged in a smithy. Obviously, you need tongs for that.

Generally no, but I wouldn’t rule out that it might be possible in a limited way in very specific circumstances. You wouldn’t be able to stop others from using certain colors.

A specific color scheme might also be used as a trademark.

I guess most people don’t get how terrifyingly dystopian this is.

In the EU, there is a serious push to make this mandatory.

Here’s the press release by the anti-trust agency: https://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/en/press-release/targeted-advertising-autorite-de-la-concurrence-imposes-fine-eu150000000-apple

TLDR: Apple made it too complicated for third-party publishers to track users.

That’s a very artful headline. It’s really bouncing around in my head.

Studying BDSM in an animal model, I see.

out-of-context quote about

That didn’t exactly look like animation. Looks like they trained an AI to control a humanoid figure in a virtual environment. It learned completely new and inhuman means of locomotion. Not very impressive from the technical angle, but the pitch about using it as a model for Zombie movement was clever.

You can use that for CG animation, of course. But those bi- and quadrupedal robots are also trained that way.

I feel the filmmakers manufactured some drama there. Knowing the real context of the quote makes it much more sensible.

It depends on where they did it, but probably yes. They had the right to do it in Japan, for example.