Because the assault itself is alleged, not proven, so this is a CYA move to avoid lawsuits.
You have a child's understanding of the Old West & how it handled the law. Which is unsurprising, given your need to desperately grasp for any straw which supports your desire to see others killed.
So, by this reasoning, no one ever has to even acknowledge the work that went into a thing, they can just copy it and proclaim it their own work. Maybe you're fine with that, Brian, but I don't want to live in a world where content farms find something good and then copy/paste it dozens of times into their own networks for profit.
Try to come up with a coherent argument. This isn't one.
Oh, that's an old one. The claim is that "Cultural Marxism" is a plot to make the west weak & effeminate by promoting LGBT+ movements, for the inevitable rule of Communists. It's all bullshit, but these idiots believe it.
So, you're arguing the only possible reason for prosecuting a billionaire is "they don’t like their political view". The billionaires are the canary in a coal mine, if they can take down billionaires, they can take down anyone! Do you even listen to yourself?
If you don't like him putting up signs in his yard, go start your own country.
Curious what the licensing agreement between Disney & Tesla said about Tesla unilaterally pulling the app from all their cars. I expect Elon is about to get a sternly worded letter from the mouse's lawyers about breach of contract...
No, it sounds like you just want to lick boots. A reporter was investigating a potentially corrupt cop and, when said cop got wind of it, said cop conducted an illegal raid of the newspaper to shut them down. And it turns out, a lot of other officials were in on approving the clearly illegal raid. Sounds like you want to white knight for all cops, even the corrupt ones.
... do you really think the FBI doesn't know to check your bank for safety deposit boxes?
It absolutely is. Training is the equivalent of reading. Reading is not infringement.That is just fundamentally wrong, and why your stance makes no sense. It's not "just reading".
They are not using the material in another work. They are training on it and producing something different.This is fucking ridiculous levels of justifying ripping off someone else's work. These systems aren't "producing something different", they're making slight tweaks to existing work and passing it off as new. Taking two things and cut & pasting them together still means you're using those two works. You can argue if it's transformative or not, but you can't justify "[t]they are not using the material in another work."
Which part of ChatGPT's systems involves "fair use"? Explain that, and your own stance might need adjusting.
"Let companies rip off your work, or else only Big Tech will be able to rip off your work" is not a compelling argument.
At least you're blunt about your desire for an authoritarian government that executes citizens on the basis of being undesirable, regardless of due process. That's more honest than you've been previously.
I’m sure I would be eminently useful to the regimeDoubtful, considering all you can do is impotently write ineffectual posts on the web. You'd be one of the first up against the wall.
Take your homophobia elsewhere, Matt. It's not going to do you any good here.
A preliminary injunction is not a ruling on the merits.No, but it's a roadmap to what this judge believes is the core legal issue of the case. And in this one, the issue is "the entire law is shit." Just in, y'know, polite legal terms.
How? Using a private police force that works internationally, which would need umpteen arrest warrants, to dragnet innocent people into sham trials?... I don't think you understand how civil copyright lawsuits work. You're not arrested, you're simply served with notice you're being sued. They're not "sham trials," they're real and you either settle out of court or defend yourself. Failing to do either of those will likely result in a summary judgement in favor of DC, then you're just plain on the hook for whatever the court awards them.
As long as the argument is going on, Willingham’s release will be in effect, anyone who takes him at his word can use Fables.This is not how the law works when it comes to legal disputes of ownership. If the courts come down in DCs favor, and they discover you've been publishing Fables content during the dispute, you are fucked. You might argue for leniency on the grounds that you believed Fables was in the public domain, but ultimately you'd still be guilty of copyright infringement & liable.
Speculation
Nothing to back this up but, given the update forces arbitration, it sounds like Roku is about to make some changes that they think could lead to people suing them. This is a pre-emptive step to force those cases into arbitration, where they'll die.