it’s only legal because there are no laws specifically making it illegal currently.
This is case with anything…anything not illegal is legal, at least in the US…
This is case with anything…anything not illegal is legal, at least in the US…
I think you're dancing around with words here. Let me be super specific:
There's no law specifically saying I can't use a jelly coated toasted to beat someone to death... but there are existing laws that cover 'beating someone to death'.
If you beat someone to death with a jelly coated toaster, you might argue for some obscure reason, your actions are not covered by the existing legal framework around beating people to death, but mostly likely you will not be protected by the claim you 'didn't know it was illegal' to do that.
...because the courts have not ruled that beating people to death with jelly coated toasters is legal.
ie.
a) There is no specific legal precedent or law around something but other laws related to it exist
and
b) Something has been determined to be legal by some precedent / law / whatever
Are not equivalent.
Regardless of what people want to believe, or have opinions one way or another, the assertion, made in the original article, that (b) was true, is not true.
Only (a) is true, and that is, legally, a much weaker statement.
(It’s legal the same way Google Image Search is.)
This is why we do heath inspections etc, it’s all about shifting the risk vs reward calculation.
That's obvious hyperbole and not a useful, or even factual, rebuttal.
Much of this is simple ignorance and many thing aren’t particularly relevant. 14 states still had sodomy laws in 2003 when the Supreme Court reversed its stance and declared them unconstitutional. At this point there are hundreds of years of crap at the federal, state, and local level much of which changes based on where you happen to be.
What percentage of the US laws have you actually read?
One, that there is always a company out there somewhere acting criminally. If that's the intended meaning, it is a factual statement, but doesn't not carry the original implication that companies do not try to avoid breaking the law. For instance, the fact that there is always a human out their somewhere committing crime doesn't not mean most humans do not actively avoid such.
Two, that any given company breaks the law often. This carries the implication that companies do not worry about breaking the law, but is also factually incorrect.
In this case, the riskiest issue isn’t copyright, it’s that it can generate NSFW/CSAM, which governments and payment processors both get really upset about.
It’s part of the basic structures where the legal team has an advisory role.
I could very easily see it being argued that “computer generated images” are in the exact same marketplace as “images” so already that case wouldn’t apply and new legal reasoning would be needed.
At least, at this time, with current interpretation- "the Supreme Court has explained that people must have notice of the possible criminal penalties for their actions at the time they act" [2] (See also Weaver v Graham[3])
This might be subject to change.
[1]https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-3-...
[2]https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-3-...
[3]http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep450/usrep450024/usr...
A new law that is passed doesn’t have retroactive power
A court ruling that the thing you’ve been doing for a year has been breaking an existing law can absolutely punish you for it. But it’s unlikely to punish random individuals doing things on a non noteworthy scale when a clear understanding of the law in a new context has not been established.