VanTheBrand

The part where they go out of the way to call the lawsuit baseless is spin though, and mixing that with this messaging does exactly that, presents a mixed message. The NYT lawsuit is objectively not baseless. OpenAI did train on the Times and chat gpt does output information from that training. That’s the basis of the lawsuit. NYT may lose, this could end up being considered fair use, it might ultimately be a flimsy basis for a lawsuit, but to say it’s baseless (and with nothing to back that up) is spin and makes this message less reassuring.

Actually this says the trademark is pending them proving they are using it and they aren’t so they keep filing extensions. Also it’s limited in scope to word processing (at there is lots of back and forth with the trademark office about that)

Is this just an iptv subscription piracy site or am I missing something?

because the law is not a math equation and context matters.

It’s less obvious than with Netflix because the songs don’t completely disappear. Spotify pays different rates for different songs depending on the label so there are certain songs they’d rather you not listen to and other content it’s much cheaper for them if you listen to so they push you to that content.

What if the ceo of xerox went on social media and promoted copy machines by showing how you could use them for infringement?

Yeah. That said, if I were him and I were notified I’d probably publicly claim that wasn’t the case to cut down on abuse! (Not saying that’s what’s going on just saying what I’d do)

Ultimately, @dang seems to have worked just fine, so well that it worked even without working.

Cloudstore is actually a on-set NAS product. So it grabs the footage as you are shooting it locally for on-set network playback and syncs to a remote cloud in the background.

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagiccloudsto...

I work in animation. There are two reasons this is okay. One, the company owns the rights to the character lightning McQueen and they own the performance of the character by way of their contract with the actor. This probably makes more sense when the specific voice performance is sounds more “charactery” and less like the actors speaking voice but the same principle applies.

Additionally there is usually a provision explicitly allowing for this in the contract with the initial voice actor. Depending on the voice actor’s leverage, they can negotiate for things like approval over the replacement, right of first refusal to voice the character or payment when a sound-a-like is used.

The fact the character sounds exactly like Owen Wilson himself is somewhat incidental though understandably makes this confusing. What they couldn’t do in this case is have an Owen Wilson soundalike voice a DIFFERENT Disney character. They only own Owen Wilson’s voice as it pertains to portraying the character Lightning McQueen.

In the OpenAI situation and Frito Lay there is no initial contract granting any rights to a voice performance.

Wonder why he never replied…

Any licensed content would have to be separately licensed for streaming online.

That’s jurisdiction dependent. For example it’s not longer the case in the UK. https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2023/12/29/court-of-appeal-r...

I agree. Apple offers TV+ in their Apple One bundle. Their services revenue is huge and this is a big driver of it. News+ and TV+ on their own are not necessarily profitable but I would bet the bundle that includes them is more profitable than the iCloud extra storage only tiers and more than makes up for the cost.

This is very different from they make a lot of money on iPhones so they can afford to waste it on TV shows.

Ted Lasso is a Warner Brothers production licensed to AppleTV more accurately.

There are 167 million prime subscribers. If only 5% don’t know better that’s over 8 million subscriber. If you surveyed 100 random Amazon customers what percent do you think would actually know what Atmos and Dolby Vision are? I doubt it’s even 50%

not saying I agree with the OP but player install base would be the infrastructure hurdle more than the discs

Plenty of tech news sites don’t have this problem and aren’t profitable. Feels like it’s not much of an actual problem. It seems like a problem at first in your story, but also consider after you left the first few times you eventually learned not to and you now know it’s a functioning site with that name. As a bonus it created a memorable story that you were compelled to post about.

in several of these situations you may become a suspect by talking to the police. Plenty of instances of people being killed or injured by the police also begin with them calling the police for help.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Linden_Cameron

If you are just concerned about being able to upload it and not have it taken down you can adjust the b&w color timing or do some restoration work on a few frames and register that tweaked version as a derivative work with the copyright office. You can then upload that version which you will hold the exclusive copyright to and can upload yourself to content id.

I think this might be launching at an opportune time. The EU is already trying to force them to open up the App Store and iMessage has a target on its back. A cease and desist about this won’t look great in the inevitable antitrust hearings…

This wouldn't change anything. If the underlying license for a piece of content linked to your movies anywhere account expired, it would be removed from movies anywhere as well as the original service you bought it from. There's a possibility that maybe because it's an edge case it might end up still in the library of a synced service but that would be more of an unintended coincidence.

The script has its own separate copyright distinct from the full episode just like how lyrics and musical compositions have separate copyrights from a specific recording of a song.

Yes

I think it will be a problem for the corporate types too. Getting exactly what you ask for can be dangerous.

I’m a screenwriter and on a given project I’ll interface with a producer (a semi-corporate type) and a studio exec (a very corporate middle manager type). A big part of my job that AI can’t do any time soon is lying to them and ignoring them. I’ll get instructions (often contradictory instructions) from both of them, and then lie to them about how good their idea is. They feel listened to, but I’ll mostly ignore both of them so that the end product will be something actually good. At the end of the process they happily take credit for the good product and even believe it was their ideas that got it there.

So cloudflare quotes him $5k so that’s 60k. You’re already wrong there.

Then your 24k a year sales person number is assuming that the sales person will sell one license the entire year, an insane assumption.

First sale doctrine doesn’t give you at right to publicly perform something any more than tuning in with an antenna does. Wouldn’t make a difference here.

The article is just wrong. SAG is trying to prevent the specific companies that hire their members from recreating a performers actual visual or vocal likeness without compensation or for very little compensation. To the extent they oppose a “generic” AI voice it would be in the context of that voice being trained on material that was originaly created by SAG performers or under SAG contracts and used for training with little or no compensation.

I was hoping this would be a combination captcha/EU cookie notification. Kill 2 birds with one stone.

If you bought the original on iTunes you’ll find it actually has been replaced, after the fact, with this version.