621–630 of 654 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Please post the prompts that will reproduce the pirated works verbatim. You don't need to reproduce anything verbatim: a 1/4 resolution copy of a movie is still infringement even though it's only a quarter of the size.
1/4 resolution, but still 100% of the movie. There's not really an equivalent for a book.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you also make the argument here instead of just linking a 25 page PDF?
It's basically many pages refuting parent's comments framing of "It's pretty easy to validate that everything they're saying is accurate." given the PDF opening is: "On September 8, 2003, the recording industry sued 261 American music fans for sharing songs on peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing networks, kicking off an unprecedented legal campaign against its own customers.1 Four years later, the recording industry has…
The parent claimed that the RIAA settled for $2-4 a song, which is true, and corroborated by your link. These were settled prior to legal action. They even had a website p2psettlement.com where you could pay before receiving legal notice.
The parent claimed that when RIAA actually sued, they sought statutory damages on a small subset of the infringed songs. Which is true. The two cases that went to trial involved 24 songs (Thomas-Rasset) and 30 songs (Tenenbaum), out of the thousands each defendant was accused of sharing. The statutory minimum was $750 per work, so a judgment on even a couple dozen songs exceeded the original settlement offer several times over.
The parent claimed that most parties got a lawyer, and would then negotiate with the RIAA. This is also true, most cases settled for under 10,000.
The two notable cases that went to trial were linked in my prior post. In one of them, the judge went so far as to urge Congress to lower the statutory minimum for individual, non-commercial infringers.
The last claim that RIAA tried to settle below the awarded damages is also true. Here is one instance of the two cases I linked: https://web.archive.org/web/20101201221839/http://news.cnet....
So I'm really not understanding what you're refuting. The EFF document you linked doesn't dispute any of these facts, it just critiques the scale and fairness. The parent described accurate mechanics, and the EFF thought it was abusive. These are both true at the same time and entirely different conversations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great, that way is called copyright. The author has the right to control who has the rights to distribute their work, and can require compensation in exchange for that right; what economists refer to as "selling".
The entire thesis of my commrnt is copyright is not that. It awards a few creators outsize rewards, but suppress creation of many more. It does not petform the job that it is supposed to do.
Your entire thesis is false on its face. One does not need a big publisher to get published or make there work available. You've also offered no other alternative wherein the other works not sought by large publishers will somehow be afforded equivalent treatment so your proposition is just ridiculous if not outright ignorant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if you can't persuade the machine to spit substantially the same text back out verbatim That's exactly what they've done in a number of the lawsuits, so I'm not sure why you think that hasn't occurred.
I think it's occurred. That's why I wrote this in the very next paragraph: "Yes, for some texts that's possible." https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.02671 The point is that for most texts, it is not possible. It's not able to recall what I wrote on Geocities in 1995, even though there's a good chance it was trained on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, there is nothing to distribute if the author is not incentivized to write... which you seemed to skip past.
I hope you're not implying that post-hoc commercial exploitation via copyright is the only incentive for authors to write. Because we have a whole history worth of evidence to the contrary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm aware that prices for agents are not legislated by state governments, but prior to 2024, as a realtor that was a member of your state's association, you were standardized at a 6% rate. Because that's what your association standardized. That's partially what the suit was about. What percentage of real estate transactions are done with agents who aren't members of XAR?
Federally, it is illegal to set a rate with clients. By law, rates must be negotiable. There's no regulation around sharing commissions between real estate agents, so maybe this is where you're getting confused?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't most creative work synthesis rather than unique whole-cloth creation? Look at what happens with software when it is open sourced and allowed to be remixed freely. Are we better or worse off because of it?
There's nothing that prevents people from remixing things that are not copyrighted and create something amazing that others are interested in or of cultural value. With open source, I should note, its remixing is in fact governed by copyright.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I can use a lossy compression algorithm such that the original could never be recovered from the image I've produced, but that derived image would surely be under copyright." I've tried my best to show where I think you're wrong. I think all that's left is arguing over the exact definitions of "recoverable" and "irretrievable". As I said, the courts will have to decide that.
I have no clue what you're talking about tbh. I can use a lossy compression algorithm that is definitionally holding less information than the original while still be subject to the copyright of the original. This is just obviously true, converting a PNG to a JPEG does not invalidate the copyright on the PNG. You can also produce an imagine using a lossy compression algorithm that is not subject to the copyright of t…