Ex-FTC boss Khan: break out the handcuffs for AI CEOs, citing 1934 precedent

Post by esseph » Tue, Sep 15, 2026, 7:28 AM UTC

tareqak wrote: post #55

eastbound wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's transformative . Not aimed at exact reproduction, so not in the scope of copyright law.

They participated in uploading the files as part of the downloading the torrent from other peers. Their use of the BitTorrent protocol to acquire these files would not have been transformative.

Post by esseph » Tue, Sep 15, 2026, 7:32 AM UTC

chneu wrote: post #66

verdverm wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> level of anti-AI sentiment out there in the world. I'd caution about projecting Western Ai attitudes onto the rest of the world. Some countries are very excited and optimistic about the future it brings, cultures and circumstances give rise to differences in opinions. One of many results showing a similar pattern, largely bifurcated along "the west" vs "the rest", or "modern economies" vs "third world" ("common ter…

Even in the western world most anti-ai sentiment ends on social media. People are anti-ai cuz it's easy. They say something, repost or like something, and they're anti-ai. Then they turnaround and use AI in their email or calendar or to make funny pics or whatever. They watch AI generated content and engage with it. Anti-AI is pretty NIMBY. People want AI, they just don't want AI data centers in their area or to give…

Post by camgunz » Tue, Sep 15, 2026, 7:48 AM UTC

snickerbockers wrote: post #59

int32_64 wrote: post #6

Aaron Swartz was facing up to 35 years for wire fraud and hacking for swiping some JSTOR documents, and the DOJ has done nothing against the AI companies and their IP violating antics.

Because that's not what IP law is for. IP law was always corporate rent-seeking. None of those arguments about fairly compensating people for their creations or preserving the profit motive were ever being made in good faith. The point was always to force you to pay for something that would be free under natural laws. And I do mean you specifically, because the act of copying information freely was always going to be…

Post by verdverm » Tue, Sep 15, 2026, 7:52 AM UTC

esseph wrote: post #83

chneu wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even in the western world most anti-ai sentiment ends on social media. People are anti-ai cuz it's easy. They say something, repost or like something, and they're anti-ai. Then they turnaround and use AI in their email or calendar or to make funny pics or whatever. They watch AI generated content and engage with it. Anti-AI is pretty NIMBY. People want AI, they just don't want AI data centers in their area or to give…

> Even in the western world most anti-ai sentiment ends on social media No. There's a lot of local regulations being enacted to prevent datacenter builds.

Post by fwlr » Tue, Sep 15, 2026, 8:00 AM UTC

verdverm wrote: post #65

fwlr wrote: post #3

The passage banning “unfair competition” is utterly marvellous: A trader may not, by pursuing a dishonest practice, force his competitors to choose between its adoption or the loss of their trade. A method of competition [is ‘unfair’ when it] casts upon one's competitors the burden of the loss of business unless they will descend to a practice which they are under a powerful moral compulsion not to adopt, even though…

> For these reasons a large share of the industry holds out against the device This is where I stop agreeing, there are some, not large parts any more; not because they were forced to adopt it, but because it has finally become useful and an ROI. This is most evident in pull request reviews and root-cause analysis, both tasks they accel at without the generated code some people bemoan. If you aren't using it for this…