I'm thinking one reason RFK jr. did the soft retraction is because the Paxton lawsuit is going to result in many subpoenas and depositions on behalf of the defense, including RFK jr.
RFK jr. is a lawyer experienced in filing BS lawsuits similar to Paxton's, but even RFK jr. knows that Kenvue's lawyers would wipe the floor with him if he tried to maintain the false claim that Tylenol causes autism when deposing him.
There is a weird disconnect with the "informed delivery" system that prevents me and perhaps millions of other people from being able to use it if the comments I read on Reddit are accurate (a big if, I know).
Apparently, you can get informed delivery if you have your own house number. Or if you are in a multi-unit building with 3 or more units. But if you are in a unit with two units that share a house number (such as A and B or a house number and house number + 1/2) you can't have it because informed delivery doesn't separate those out into two accounts, and they don't want you to have access to your neighbors mail scans. But for some reason they can and do make multiple accounts for units with three or more units.
I don't know if that summary is true. I just know that I'm surrounded by houses that can get informed delivery but I can't. The government gets to see scans of all my mail, but not me, not even to see if my mail has gone missing between me and my post box, as would have been very useful when my mail box was burglarized - it was caught on camera, but I couldn't know what they stole from the box because I didn't know what mail had been delivered.
Authors have some legit beefs with AI when it actually copies them word for word, but it is rarely asked to do that. Instead, it does what people do in creating entirely new content based on reading content - that is what humans do.
So many people refused to understand how AI works and persist in false copyright infringement claims about it.
Dear Tech Dirt:
Love the web site but your grammar sometimes grates.
Publisher wants $2,500 to allow academics to post their own manuscript to their own repository.
Is there only one article and only one repository? The reason why I ask is because academic is plural. This should read 'Publisher wants $2,500 to allow academics to post their own manuscripts to their own repositories'.
"There’s plenty I like about him myself."
The time when that was reasonable has long since passed, and he has fully outed himself as a terrible person who's impetuous and bad at his job(s). Being the world's richest man is not, sadly, a meritocracy.
Disney would just transfer all of it's IP to shell companies that don't fit the definitions in the bill, which Disney would then "pay" the shell company to use. This is already done by companies for tax reasons.
I mentioned that he's selling them as one of the 4 factors, not the only one. His use isn't transformative. "Putting a photo on a mug" is an ordinary use of the image that requires licensing.
However, Fair Use is an affirmative defense, and only a lawsuit and a trial can determine whether any specific instance qualifies. So even though I say it's not Fair Use and Mike says it is, neither of us are right until a court says so.
Not fair use. Not transformative. And he's selling them, so he is using it commercially in a way that he should have licensed, or not used if he could not obtain a license.
The photo on the mug is not transformative the way Shepard Fairey's Obama "Hope" poster is - in that case it is the artwork that transformed and made the image iconic in a way that should have been fair use. But in the photo on the mug, the photo is iconic, and Hawly is using it for commercial purposes without significant transformation in a way that is not fair use.
Hoeg Law has the rundown, and an alleged confession by someone who claims to have submitted the takedown requests with the intent of getting noticed enough for Bungie to rescind all fraudulent Bungie takedowns, including those directed at his/her YouTube account.
https://youtu.be/2W75qipKEVo
"Not if they colluded. They picked the fruit of the poisoned tree."
You and your "Law & Order"/Google University law degree are confusing 1st Amendment law for laws about the admissibility of evidence for prosecution in a criminal case.
One of the problems mentioned in the response video is that Mark Fitzpatrick can't appeal all 150 take downs at once because that would result in his channel being permanently deleted by Google - which is entirely based on Google policies not copyright law.
The problem is that all the copyright strike "appeals" all are decided by the alleged copyright holder, not by YouTube. Each appeal denied by the claimant will result in a "strike" against the YouTube channel. The strikes last 90 days each. Since it only takes three to have your channel deleted Mark Fitzpatrick can only appeal a couple at a time, and the process takes months for the individual appeals - which is why he says that appealing all of the take downs would take him until he is in his 60s.
Google is giving anyone who claims to have copyright a heckler's veto over content. By letting unjudicated claims count as strikes anyone can potentially permanently shut down a YouTube channel by making 3 or more copyright strike claims, with no consequences for making false claims.
All of these would seem to qualify as what the bill calls an "input-transparent algorithm", as none of the criteria you just listed involve the use of user-specific data.
"Seem" being the operative aspect. To varying degrees you are given custom results, including based on your geolocation.
The issue isn't the keywords but the sorting of results for "relevance", which is the thing that makes Google so useful. You want the "best results" (which google uses an very complex algorithm that is not alphabetical) on page one. And google even searches for similar words to your search term, as well as spelling corrections and all sorts of other things that aren't part of the ridiculous "exemption". The bill would make search engines utterly un-usable because it is algorithms that make the search results useful.
So, how are search engine results going to work? With the results page have to be in alphabetical order based on the page title, like a phonebook? Will phone book tropes like "AAAAA1 Locksmithing" become search engine tropes, with each page fighting to have more As in the title?
This stupid bill is utterly infeasible, and completely unconstitutional. Neither of which stops right wingers, but that there is support by any dems is, perhaps, even more appalling.
"So now the question is, which is going to be more of a problem for Trump's new operation? The Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC) or the SEC? "
I'm gonna say the SFC, because Trump has a long history of avoiding meaningful regulatory actions by government. He's gotten pass after pass after pass. He should have been criminally prosecuted for so many crimes, but hasn't been, and I don't really expect that to change.
You would think, but printer makers have used both copyright law and patent law to try to make it difficult or impossible for 3d parties to make less expensive replacement printer cartridges.
The whole covering the light violates the TOS seems a pretty transparent CYA clause. But it is also useful for threatening journalists who show how to do it, thus violating the FB TOS and "justifying" FB banning their accounts.
RFK jr. didn't want to be deposed
I'm thinking one reason RFK jr. did the soft retraction is because the Paxton lawsuit is going to result in many subpoenas and depositions on behalf of the defense, including RFK jr. RFK jr. is a lawyer experienced in filing BS lawsuits similar to Paxton's, but even RFK jr. knows that Kenvue's lawyers would wipe the floor with him if he tried to maintain the false claim that Tylenol causes autism when deposing him.
They have mail cover for everyone, but I can't get the "informed delivery" service
There is a weird disconnect with the "informed delivery" system that prevents me and perhaps millions of other people from being able to use it if the comments I read on Reddit are accurate (a big if, I know). Apparently, you can get informed delivery if you have your own house number. Or if you are in a multi-unit building with 3 or more units. But if you are in a unit with two units that share a house number (such as A and B or a house number and house number + 1/2) you can't have it because informed delivery doesn't separate those out into two accounts, and they don't want you to have access to your neighbors mail scans. But for some reason they can and do make multiple accounts for units with three or more units. I don't know if that summary is true. I just know that I'm surrounded by houses that can get informed delivery but I can't. The government gets to see scans of all my mail, but not me, not even to see if my mail has gone missing between me and my post box, as would have been very useful when my mail box was burglarized - it was caught on camera, but I couldn't know what they stole from the box because I didn't know what mail had been delivered.
Please hire a copy editor
AI does what humans do in synthesizing *new* content, but faster and cheaper
Authors have some legit beefs with AI when it actually copies them word for word, but it is rarely asked to do that. Instead, it does what people do in creating entirely new content based on reading content - that is what humans do. So many people refused to understand how AI works and persist in false copyright infringement claims about it.
Noun agreement
Dear Tech Dirt: Love the web site but your grammar sometimes grates. Publisher wants $2,500 to allow academics to post their own manuscript to their own repository. Is there only one article and only one repository? The reason why I ask is because academic is plural. This should read 'Publisher wants $2,500 to allow academics to post their own manuscripts to their own repositories'.
Dad is part of the problem
The cops were awful. But dad asked them over to try to scare the kid straight, and they went with it.
"There’s plenty I like about him myself." The time when that was reasonable has long since passed, and he has fully outed himself as a terrible person who's impetuous and bad at his job(s). Being the world's richest man is not, sadly, a meritocracy.
And it wouldn't even work thanks to shell companies
Disney would just transfer all of it's IP to shell companies that don't fit the definitions in the bill, which Disney would then "pay" the shell company to use. This is already done by companies for tax reasons.
Still not fair use.
I mentioned that he's selling them as one of the 4 factors, not the only one. His use isn't transformative. "Putting a photo on a mug" is an ordinary use of the image that requires licensing. However, Fair Use is an affirmative defense, and only a lawsuit and a trial can determine whether any specific instance qualifies. So even though I say it's not Fair Use and Mike says it is, neither of us are right until a court says so.
Heck naw
Not fair use. Not transformative. And he's selling them, so he is using it commercially in a way that he should have licensed, or not used if he could not obtain a license. The photo on the mug is not transformative the way Shepard Fairey's Obama "Hope" poster is - in that case it is the artwork that transformed and made the image iconic in a way that should have been fair use. But in the photo on the mug, the photo is iconic, and Hawly is using it for commercial purposes without significant transformation in a way that is not fair use.
Fraudulent takedown because YouTube doesn't verify take down requester authenticity
Hoeg Law has the rundown, and an alleged confession by someone who claims to have submitted the takedown requests with the intent of getting noticed enough for Bungie to rescind all fraudulent Bungie takedowns, including those directed at his/her YouTube account. https://youtu.be/2W75qipKEVo
Re: Re: Re: Other Side
"Not if they colluded. They picked the fruit of the poisoned tree." You and your "Law & Order"/Google University law degree are confusing 1st Amendment law for laws about the admissibility of evidence for prosecution in a criminal case.
The problem is Googles "3 strikes and you are out" policy
One of the problems mentioned in the response video is that Mark Fitzpatrick can't appeal all 150 take downs at once because that would result in his channel being permanently deleted by Google - which is entirely based on Google policies not copyright law.
The problem is that all the copyright strike "appeals" all are decided by the alleged copyright holder, not by YouTube. Each appeal denied by the claimant will result in a "strike" against the YouTube channel. The strikes last 90 days each. Since it only takes three to have your channel deleted Mark Fitzpatrick can only appeal a couple at a time, and the process takes months for the individual appeals - which is why he says that appealing all of the take downs would take him until he is in his 60s.
Google is giving anyone who claims to have copyright a heckler's veto over content. By letting unjudicated claims count as strikes anyone can potentially permanently shut down a YouTube channel by making 3 or more copyright strike claims, with no consequences for making false claims.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re:
The issue isn't the keywords but the sorting of results for "relevance", which is the thing that makes Google so useful. You want the "best results" (which google uses an very complex algorithm that is not alphabetical) on page one. And google even searches for similar words to your search term, as well as spelling corrections and all sorts of other things that aren't part of the ridiculous "exemption". The bill would make search engines utterly un-usable because it is algorithms that make the search results useful.
So, how are search engine results going to work? With the results page have to be in alphabetical order based on the page title, like a phonebook? Will phone book tropes like "AAAAA1 Locksmithing" become search engine tropes, with each page fighting to have more As in the title?
This stupid bill is utterly infeasible, and completely unconstitutional. Neither of which stops right wingers, but that there is support by any dems is, perhaps, even more appalling.
I'm gonna say the SFC, because Trump has a long history of avoiding meaningful regulatory actions by government. He's gotten pass after pass after pass. He should have been criminally prosecuted for so many crimes, but hasn't been, and I don't really expect that to change.
Re: Re:
You would think, but printer makers have used both copyright law and patent law to try to make it difficult or impossible for 3d parties to make less expensive replacement printer cartridges.
Maybe all the customer service people are telecommitting by a Starlink?
Limited CYA
The whole covering the light violates the TOS seems a pretty transparent CYA clause. But it is also useful for threatening journalists who show how to do it, thus violating the FB TOS and "justifying" FB banning their accounts.