boolemancer

> No because the primary use of Linux is not piracy. Whereas for emulation it is.

It's not piracy to play a game that you've backed up on different hardware than the original developers intended.

What preventative measures could they have used?

Doesn't this use case fall squarely in the realm of the exception for the purposes of interoperability?

> [4] "On information and belief, Yuzu users have (1) dumped Nintendo games they have lawfully purchased and copied the game ROMs into Yuzu; and (2) obtained Nintendo games online from pirate websites and copied those game ROMs into Yuzu. Each such reproduction constitutes a violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501(a) for which Plaintiff is entitled to damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504 and injunctive relief under § 502"

How on earth can they claim that the developers of Yuzu are responsible for copying done by their users?

I'm not sure why you're bringing circumcision into this.

How does opening up the walled garden impact you if you never side load anything?

> If it actually looks different, then it becomes a different code point.

Which language gets the original code point and which one needs to change?

And what happens to all of the existing text written with the original code point?

Personally I like variable names better than symbols anyway.

> P.S. Having multiple Unicode values that exhibit identically when displayed are a huge veer-into-the-ditch mistake. I.e. the notion that code points should have semantic value is simply wrong.

Should a cyrillic `а` and a latin `a` have the same code point?

If they did then there's no consistent way to group those two alphabets, one or the other would end up with letters outside it's main grouping.

And what happens if the shapes of those two characters divege over time? Do you have a breaking change to introduce a new code point for one of the languages, or do you just make it impossible to have a font that can be used for both latin and cyrillic at the same time?

This isn't just a theoretical problem, by the way. There are characters in Chinese and Japanese that share a code point but the shapes of the characters aren't the same in the two languages.

Seems to me that if you're introducing something that seems like a bug on purpose, you should probably have the comment in the code explaining why it's there.

There exist free apps that Apple doesn't approve of in it's store.

And there are also free apps that might want to be distributed through Apple's store alongside an alternative store, which would require them to accept the new terms, as far as I can tell.

As long as Apple can prove that the specific third party app caused whatever damage the warranty was supposed to be covering, sure.

My impression was the the Spirit mentioned in the comment was Spirit AeroSystems, not Spirit Airlines, so the relationship between the two companies is the other way around; Boeing is the customer.

I assume the radio technology:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LoRa

Any explicit license would only apply to copyrights, including all of the ones you listed there. Buying a painting is not copying it, neither is looking at it, so it wouldn't matter if I had a license for it or not.

The fact is that copyright only applies to specific situations, it does not give you complete control over the thing you made and what can be done with it.

If I buy your book, I can lend it to a friend and they can read it without paying you. I can read it out loud to my children. I can cross out your words and write in my own, even if it completely changes the meaning of the story. I can highlight passages and write in the margins. I can tear pages out and use them for kindling. I can go through and tally up how many times you use each word.

Copyright only gives you control over copies, end even then there are limits on that control.

> Generative AI, however, can ONLY learn via the theft of copyrighted works.

That's not true at all. Any works in the public domain are not copyrighted, and there are things that are not copyrightable, like lists of facts and recipes.

Generative AI could be trained exclusively on such works (though obviously it would be missing a lot of context, so probably wouldn't be as desirable as something trained on everything).

Copyright is there to allow you to stop other people from copying your work, but it doesn't give you control over anything else that they might do with it.

If I buy your painting, you can stop me from making copies and selling them to other people, but you can't stop me from selling my original copy to whomever I want, nor could you stop me from painting little dinosaurs all over it and hanging it in my hallway.

That means that if I buy your painting, I'm also free to study it and learn from it in whichever way I please. Studying something is not copying it.

That's not a fair statement to make. It can influence a judge's decision on whether something is fair use, but it can still be fair use even if you profit from it.

> Its not like looking and getting inspiration, its looking and being able to almost perfectly duplicate the style.

You cannot copyright a style. A person is perfectly within their right to copy your art style when they produce their own work. So, I think "duplicate the style of" and "taking inspiration from" are the same thing in this context.

> It took them years to learn how to code well. All that effort should be contributed to the world for free.

I mean, there is a plethora of open source work that is actually contributed to the world for free, right?

Why would you feel that anybody was personally scolding you by saying "black lives matter" if you already believed that black lives matter?

Clearly, plenty of people, through both their actions and their words, have made it very clear that they don't believe that black lives matter, and the movement was always aimed squarely at them.

> Money is a proxy for user value and it is in Amazon's best interest for the customer to continually act upon these recommendations. If Amazon fails to deliver user value customers will be less willing to continue paying.

You're talking about the same Amazon that will blindly give me recommendations for other products that fill exactly the same niche as the one I just bought.

"Oh, you just bought a generator? You probably need a second one too, right?"

> no, my argument is that the tool being run by midjourney makes them liable for how it is operation. because it's their model, their program, their computer. They are responsible at every level.

I still don't see how this would be any different from something like Adobe hosting a cloud-based version of Photoshop. Someone could use that tool to create an image that infringes on someone's copyrights, but I think you would be hard-pressed to convince people that Adobe is liable for the drawings that other people create with their tools.

> not sure why you think that's relevant, but yes google is liable for copyright infringement facilitated by their platform. that's why if you upload a full-length video to youtube and the rights-holder posts a DMCA, google will delist or delete your video.

The YouTube case is about Google themselves redistributing the copyrighted material. The distinction with the Google Docs example is that Google isn't distributing the copyrighted material, it's just a tool being used to facilitate the creation of that material.

The JavaScript remark was just because you implied that it made a difference whether the software was running locally or on Midjourney's servers. If that's the case, I want to know where you think the line is drawn between the two situations.

So, no, I still don't see how this is as cut and dry as you claim.

That's the thing about the public domain; it belongs to the public, not to any one company.

I doubt you have any problem with people profiting off of Shakespeare, Mozart or fairy tales, so what is different about Mickey Mouse?

How many of Disney's cartoons do you think were based on public domain works?

> > If he’s mad at that wait till he sees what the cp command does! > > in order for that analogy to even remotely be applicable, midjourney would have to be a program you run on your own computer and not a service running on midjourney's computers that does what you ask it to.

So your argument is that the tool running remotely as a service somehow makes it different from one running on your local computer?

So if someone copies the contents of a novel into Google Docs, Google is liable for their copyright infringement, but if they paste it into Word running on their computer, all of the liability is on them?

At what point does the liability shift? What if all of the functionality is implemented in JavaScript in the browser, rather than running on someone else's server?

What if they run all but the last layer of the model on the server, then finish the computation locally?

I don't think the situation is nearly as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

There is a good video[1] from the Computerphile channel describing the concept in the context of JPEG.

[1] https://youtu.be/Q2aEzeMDHMA

I think it's hard to call it misreporting when they've been reporting it the same way since before the standard you'd rather they use existed.

That's a change from what they said before for one, but there's also no real way to accurately measure "installs" anyway at a technical level.

Fair enough, I wasn't familiar with that feature.

Seems like introducing unnecessary overhead to me, but I'm also sure there's a reason it exists, so...

I wouldn't expect Docker to be listening on anything. Docker isn't proxying any traffic into the container, it's just configuring how ports are forwarded from the host to the container.