I could care less about defending Gavin Newsom, not a fan, but fair is fair and a quick check of the linked article reveals he said that whether or not Abrego Garcia is a gang member or not is a distraction, which is 100% correct.
We only know up to the point of getting the contact info. Seems a no-brainer that after that, you run some ML on the data to separate the Repuglicans from the Democrats and then assist the Rs in registering and maybe tell the Ds nothing or that its done already.
I will happily defer to the more informed opinions around here if there is a substantive answer to this, but isn't the mere possession of an illegal copy where the violation is? i.e. with the musician inspired by pirated music it does not matter whether what she writes is truly new and original, or if she writes anything at all. The copyright infringement happened with the illegal download of a pirated song, no?
So the lawsuit could have merit if these AI models used copies of books that were not legally obtained. Who cares how it was used, or even if it wasn't used al all?
Please enlighten me.
All SCOTUS needs to do is invent a new "qualified immunity" doctrine for legislatures and the executive.
There is no remedy for this constitutional violation because how was some poor shmuck in the Florida legislature supposed to understand in the moment that passing specific laws to overtly punish a single corporation's overtly political speech was "technically" unconstitutional??
It's all so complicated and lawyerly...
A panel of circuit or SCOTUS judges is deciding what the law is in the abstract and making value judgements and educated arguments.
A jury of your peers is trying to decide if a set of facts and circumstances under settled law means an individual is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Neither scenario above is or isn't necessarily appropriate for majority or unanimity, but I think they are different enough that one should not expect them to be the same in that regard.
I'm not a fan of Tabibbi's twitter thing, basically "me too" to antonymous coward's description of his familiarity with Tabibbi. That said a cursory review of his wiki page makes what BJC860 said (forcing himself on young girls) seem unlikely to be very accurate.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by coby.
Not a fair characterization
I could care less about defending Gavin Newsom, not a fan, but fair is fair and a quick check of the linked article reveals he said that whether or not Abrego Garcia is a gang member or not is a distraction, which is 100% correct.
not the whole story
We only know up to the point of getting the contact info. Seems a no-brainer that after that, you run some ML on the data to separate the Repuglicans from the Democrats and then assist the Rs in registering and maybe tell the Ds nothing or that its done already.
Ah. Well, no koalas in Tasmania (natively I mean)
but even just possessing a copy can be illegal
I will happily defer to the more informed opinions around here if there is a substantive answer to this, but isn't the mere possession of an illegal copy where the violation is? i.e. with the musician inspired by pirated music it does not matter whether what she writes is truly new and original, or if she writes anything at all. The copyright infringement happened with the illegal download of a pirated song, no? So the lawsuit could have merit if these AI models used copies of books that were not legally obtained. Who cares how it was used, or even if it wasn't used al all? Please enlighten me.
Time for a new doctrine
All SCOTUS needs to do is invent a new "qualified immunity" doctrine for legislatures and the executive. There is no remedy for this constitutional violation because how was some poor shmuck in the Florida legislature supposed to understand in the moment that passing specific laws to overtly punish a single corporation's overtly political speech was "technically" unconstitutional?? It's all so complicated and lawyerly...
Comparing apples to not-apples
A panel of circuit or SCOTUS judges is deciding what the law is in the abstract and making value judgements and educated arguments. A jury of your peers is trying to decide if a set of facts and circumstances under settled law means an individual is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Neither scenario above is or isn't necessarily appropriate for majority or unanimity, but I think they are different enough that one should not expect them to be the same in that regard.
probably not...
I'm not a fan of Tabibbi's twitter thing, basically "me too" to antonymous coward's description of his familiarity with Tabibbi. That said a cursory review of his wiki page makes what BJC860 said (forcing himself on young girls) seem unlikely to be very accurate.