141–150 of 155 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would become known during discovery.
How can you find out if an AI created something versus a human with a pixel editor?
If there's even a hint that you used AI output in the work and you failed to disclose it to the US Copyright Office, they can cancel your registration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI has no intent or creativity, so it can be neither right nor wrong, neither good nor bad. So just as there's no procedural difference between an AI getting something right and an AI "hallucinating", if the word "slop" describes anything AI generates, it describes all of it. Either everything generative AI creates is slop or nothing is. So everything is. Also I know stealing is not the same thing as copyright infrin…
> AI has no intent or creativity, so it can be neither right nor wrong, neither good nor bad. Values aren't required for something to be good or bad. Outcomes are. A giant meteor strike causing a global firestorm & brief ice age causing mass death is bad, but giant meteors have no values.
But then I vote Giant Meteor/Pestilence 2028. They will deliver what they promise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think still images have improved remarkably, though some things still look off for people (they look too-flawless). Whereas video suffers from the strange fluidity and unnatural motion of things.
> though some things still look off for people (they look too-flawless) I think _maybe_ there's an uncanny valley problem (and it may vary person to person). I found Stable Diffusion 1.5's output quite _bad_, say, but not as, I dunno, objectionable and wrong-looking as current models. Video has always been a complete mess, remains a complete mess, I don't see any real path towards it not being a complete mess. It is,…
I've also found the proliferation of "AI film director" created "films" funny.
The output is a strung together set of 2-3 second clips telling some story. The characters changing between clips, the scenery changing drastically, etc. There is nothing cohesive. I imagine its a similar "context window"-like problem, if you have to keep many minutes of visual context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand this opinion. The only leverage you have to stop Spotify from taking your music and publishing it without your permission is your copyright of the music. In fact, every time I see a complaint about copyright it's always "we tried to do something at small scale for some noble purpose and couldn't because of pesky copyright laws," and it completely ignores the massive scale of abuse for profit purpos…
> The only leverage you have to stop Spotify from taking your music and publishing it without your permission is your copyright of the music. There are a lot of challenges facing a band, including the frustrations of CDBaby and Distrokid. If you told me my music would just magically appear on Spotify without my having to lift a finger (and without having to implicitly endorse them by putting it there), that'd be a hu…
I don't believe that most creators would willingly let go of their right as you would.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sweat of the Brow is irrelevant. Only humans (or collections of humans) can create a work that gets covered by copyright. Non-human animals cannot create copyrighted works, even intelligent ones. Humans can apply sufficient creative transformations to non-copyrighted works to create copyrighted works.
A human did create the work. A human turned on the computer and pressed the button.
U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices § 306 (3d ed. 2021)¹ is quite explicit:
> The U.S. Copyright Office will register an original work of authorship, provided that the work was created by a human being.
> The copyright law only protects “the fruits of intellectual labor” that “are founded in the creative powers of the mind.” Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U.S. 82, 94 (1879). Because copyright law is limited to “original intellectual conceptions of the author,” the Office will refuse to register a claim if it determines that a human being did not create the work. Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53, 58 (1884). For representative examples of works that do not satisfy this requirement, see Section 313.2 below.
This has not yet been litigated to conclusion, but it seems likely to me that LLM-generated outputs are not subject to copyright.
¹https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Feels like "paying extra for the extended warranty" vibes. What it covers isn't much (do you expect someone to come after you in small claims court and if they do, was that your main concern?) meanwhile the big claim you're actually worried about is what it doesn't cover. And if you really wanted insurance then why not get it from an actual insurance company?
Because almost everything is risk mitigation or reduction, not elimination. In particular, in the US, the legal apparatus has been gamified to the point that the expectation becomes people will sue if their expected value out of it is positive even if the case is insane on its merits, because it's much more likely someone with enough risk and cost will settle as the cheaper option. And in that world, there is nothing…
This doesn't seem to do the first one. It doesn't actually stop you from doing the things you could get in trouble for doing, even though that was ostensibly the original point.
And the second one is where you want to shave off the high side, not the low side. This is why normal insurance is typically a policy large enough to cover whatever plausible amount of damages there could be and then a deductible so you don't have tons of people filing claims for amounts small enough they could reasonably cover themselves instead of paying the insurance company a margin to do it. But this is the opposite of that, they'd cover a little claim you'd have been able to shrug off regardless but not the one where you'd most want coverage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A human did create the work. A human turned on the computer and pressed the button.
A human needs to have significant creative choices involved in the creation for a work to be copyrightable. Naruto v. Slater litigated this, where a "selfie" taken by a macaque was ruled to not be eligible for copyright. U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices § 306 (3d ed. 2021)¹ is quite explicit: > The U.S. Copyright Office will register an original work of authorship, provided that th…
How does this square with encryption keys being copyrightable?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The only leverage you have to stop Spotify from taking your music and publishing it without your permission is your copyright of the music. There are a lot of challenges facing a band, including the frustrations of CDBaby and Distrokid. If you told me my music would just magically appear on Spotify without my having to lift a finger (and without having to implicitly endorse them by putting it there), that'd be a hu…
I assume that this means you simply make all your work public domain, as you don't believe in copyright? I don't believe that most creators would willingly let go of their right as you would.
And it's far from a foregone conclusion that what you call "their right" is real - I don't believe I have a right to stop you from copying bytes on your device. That's insane.
And yes, I'm sure that the top .01% of pop musicians for whom the system is working well will hang on, and many more hoping to hit whatever lottery they've hit.
But as I pointed out above, some genres which are experiencing thunderous revivals right now are embracing DRM-free very hard, and even CC as well.
As John Perry Barlow said about his band, The Grateful Dead, when he found himself facing down record labels and movie studios as the only person on the stage who was actually in a band:
"We gave away our so-called intellectual property and became the most popular band performing band in the United States. and we're making one hell of a lot of money giving it away. It was not required that we be absolutely firm in our hold on this material because we recognize something important which is that in an information economy the normal sense of an economy based on scarcity is turned on its head. Value in an information economy is based on familiarity and attention. These are very different principles and and trying to optimize towards scarcity as you are by all of your methods is not going to be in the benefit of creation."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If MW didn't have co-op multiplayer on console than that's another example of the Mandela effect.
It had split-screen local multiplayer, but you couldn't play online in that configuration
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A human needs to have significant creative choices involved in the creation for a work to be copyrightable. Naruto v. Slater litigated this, where a "selfie" taken by a macaque was ruled to not be eligible for copyright. U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices § 306 (3d ed. 2021)¹ is quite explicit: > The U.S. Copyright Office will register an original work of authorship, provided that th…
> A human needs to have significant creative choices involved in the creation for a work to be copyrightable. How does this square with encryption keys being copyrightable?