Rico R. 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (324) comment rss

  • On the post: Roku Will Brick Your Streaming Devices If You Don’t Agree To Binding Arbitration

    Rico R. ( profile ), 14 Mar, 2024 @ 11:42am

    Rule #1:

    Not too surprisingly, Roku is refusing to respond to press inquiries as to why it thought being a restrictive and obnoxious jackass was a great business decision.
    Don't you know? The first rule about enshittification is you don't talk about enshittification, especially with the press!

  • On the post: 5th Circuit Is Gonna 5th Circus: Declares Age Verification Perfectly Fine Under The First Amendment

    Rico R. ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2024 @ 12:51pm

    Can the 5th Circuit ever do anything not crazy?
    What are you talking about? They issue the crazy decisions only on days that end in a "Y"!

  • On the post: 5th Circuit Is Gonna 5th Circus: Declares Age Verification Perfectly Fine Under The First Amendment

    Rico R. ( profile ), 11 Mar, 2024 @ 12:46pm

    So, when you try to access Techdirt in Texas, are you prompted to verify your age before accessing content? What about YouTube or Facebook? ExTwitter? Google? No? Of course not, because this law only targets age verification on porn sites. In other words, if PornHub was only hosting court documents or any other type of content, this law puts them in the clear. But as soon as they host pornographic content, this law kicks in and requires age verification. If your age verification requirement is only required for certain types of speech and not others, that's content-based restrictions in violation of both the First Amendment and Section 230. So, yes, seeing as the state can take legal action for failure to implement age verification and hold them liable, this is very much being held liable for the content they host.

  • On the post: Two Congressmen Introduce Law To Grant Copyright To Golf Course Design

    Rico R. ( profile ), 22 Feb, 2024 @ 04:42pm

    Golf is worthless... unless it has copyright protection!

    Copyright maximalism is a cult, and this bill proves it. It's like nothing has value to these people unless there is copyright protection. The inventor of the polio vaccine once said:

    Could you patent the sun?
    Patent, no. But to these people, it's only a matter of time until someone finds a way to copyright it! And when that happens, they'll go after all those dastardly sun pirates who dare manufacture light bulbs without getting permission from the sun's creator, who is... (checks notes) God!?!? You might say that's ludicrous, but then I never thought people would be demanding to grant copyright protection to golf courses. And yet, here we are!!

  • On the post: ExTwitter Accused Of Secretly Boosting Mr. Beast Video With Undisclosed Ad Placements

    Rico R. ( profile ), 22 Jan, 2024 @ 09:52am

    A better ad?

    Come to ExTwitter, a serious video hosting site where:

    1. Elon boosts videos he likes as ads without saying they're ads.
    2. People can post full movies, including those that haven't officially come out yet.
    3. The site is guaranteed to work approximately 81% of the time.
    All for just $8 a month... Sounds like a bargain compared to Vimeo.

  • On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: December 31st – January 6th

    Rico R. ( profile ), 07 Jan, 2024 @ 11:03am

    About that Warner Music/YouTube story...

    I have one gripe with Amanda Palmer's quote, but it should be easy to fix... The actual quote:

    did i mention that being on a major label is starting to seem like...not such a grand idea?
    How it should read:
    did i mention that being on a major label is...not such a grand idea?
    FTFY, Amanda Palmer, albeit 15 years late.

  • On the post: Justice O’Connor’s Important Contribution To Copyright Law: Copyright Must Serve The Public First

    Rico R. ( profile ), 20 Dec, 2023 @ 05:03pm

    Partially true... RE: The Betamax Case

    It’s sad that the core underlying finding in that case, that technologies that have “significant non-infringing uses,” should be allowed, has been whittled away by court after court since.
    Yes, it's partially true that courts have since ruled in ways that put many constraints on the doctrine of "significant non-infringing uses", especially considering the finding in MGM v. Grokster. However, I'd argue that Congress has as much to blame for this (if not most of the blame), especially considering the DMCA. Section 1201 may be obvious. How to stop Betamax-like innovation in one step: Add DRM. Not only is it a technical barrier for people who want to innovate on existing tech, but breaking it is illegal even if the aim for doing so is not. DVD and Blu-ray rippers are capable of substantial, non-infringing uses. Still, the fact that they require removing CSS copy protection in DVDs and AACS copy protection in Blu-rays is enough to make distributing or even using them illegal under Section 1201 of the DMCA. However, I'd also argue that Section 512, while as beneficial as it is for the Internet, also restricts the reach of the doctrine of substantial, non-infringing uses. Sites like YouTube, Facebook, etc. aren't liable for copyright infringement done by their users because of section 512 of the DMCA, but it is contingent on them taking very specific steps to stop copyright infringement on their respective platforms. They must be unaware of copyright infringement on the platform, remove allegedly copyright infringing content upon request of a copyright holder, and ban users who are deemed to be repeat infringers. While not quite the same as policing the platform for copyright infringement, it's still not enough to simply say, "Our site is capable of substantial non-infringing uses" to escape liability. You have to do what the law requires. A true liability shield that upholds the ruling in the Betamax case would be more akin to Section 230: Simply say sites with user-generated content aren't liable for copyright infringement by their users, period. But unfortunately, that's not our current law.

  • On the post: Community Notes Is Great Until It Challenges Elon, And Then It’s Being ‘Manipulated’ By State Actors

    Rico R. ( profile ), 12 Dec, 2023 @ 10:15am

    There's no such thing as "private-actor...censorship". If a private social media company removes your post or kicks you off their platform, that's their First Amendment right. To say that they must host your content is a violation of the First Amendment. Note how nowhere in this reply did I mention one side of the political aisle or the other. That's because this principle is not dependent on anyone's political views! But go on, try to tell me that exposing the hypocrisy Elon is displaying by blaming community notes on his content on state actors is not justifiable...

  • On the post: Community Notes Is Great Until It Challenges Elon, And Then It’s Being ‘Manipulated’ By State Actors

    Rico R. ( profile ), 12 Dec, 2023 @ 10:05am

    Twitter is "Free!"

    Not free as in free speech (no matter how much Elon tries to claim it is). Nor is it free as in free beer. It's free as in "Free to be me", even when that means acting like an entitled jerk to anyone who doesn't agree with you.

  • On the post: Apple’s Nonsensical Attack On Beeper For Making Apple’s Own Users Safer

    Rico R. ( profile ), 11 Dec, 2023 @ 12:36pm

    Security through obscurity

    Apple: We've developed a way to end-to-end encrypt text messages between iPhone users. It's part of Apple's dedication to user security and privacy. Also Apple: If you want to message someone who isn't an iPhone user, we'll make sure that you're forced to use an insecure outdated protocol with no options for end-to-end encryption. Sorry, that's just the reality of how we developed iMessage to protect our bottom line by forcing them to switch to iPhones the security of all our customers.

  • On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: December 3rd – 9th

    Rico R. ( profile ), 09 Dec, 2023 @ 12:23pm

    Joe Satriani/Coldplay Collateral Damage

    I'd love to check out the video that Techdirt selected 15 years ago pointing out the similarities between the melodies at issue in the Coldplay copyright lawsuit. There's just one tiny problem. Instead of an embedded video, I see this lovely notice:

    Video unavailable This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by EMI Music
    Apparently, defending Coldplay from a bogus copyright infringement claim is, in and of itself, another bogus copyright infringement claim! Fair use who?

  • On the post: Elon Says Copyright/AI Lawsuits Don’t Matter Because ‘Digital God’ Will Arrive Before They’re Decided

    Rico R. ( profile ), 30 Nov, 2023 @ 11:53am

    Careful, Elon... You're playing with fire!

    If Digital God exists, then that means Digital God can create a simulation of the universe. If one simulation exists, then multiple can exist. Meaning, by using AI to resolve AI's copyright "problems", we've opened the can of worms that we might live in a simulation!

  • On the post: FTC Gets Fair Use Backwards, Claims It’s Somehow Anti-Competitive?

    Rico R. ( profile ), 11 Nov, 2023 @ 09:28am

    "Plaintiff's claims are accepted as true" simply refers to the standard for a Motion to Dismiss. The idea being, that even if the court was to assume that the Plaintiff's accusations were true and bared out in discovery, if there still is no cognizable legal claim that a court can grant relief for, then the case can be dismissed. If the case is not dismissed, then the case proceeds to an answer and discovery, where evidence must be gathered to support or refute the claims made in the lawsuit. That presumption no longer has any legal weight. So, no, simply saying you "suspect" something in a lawsuit, and it's accepted as true for the purposes of evaluating a motion to dismiss, is not in and of itself evidence that said suspicion is true.

  • On the post: FTC Gets Fair Use Backwards, Claims It’s Somehow Anti-Competitive?

    Rico R. ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2023 @ 08:32pm

    The cases we’re dealing with is things like passing pirated material from pirate sites to the AI to monetize the illegal activity.
    Massive citation needed there. Is there evidence that they're sourcing stuff all from pirated material and not, oh, I don't know, content that is first posted online that can be accessed by anyone for free anyway? Unless you're prepared to say that Google doing the same thing to build a search engine is infringement, existing case law notwithstanding, then there's no law broken here.

  • On the post: FTC Gets Fair Use Backwards, Claims It’s Somehow Anti-Competitive?

    Rico R. ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2023 @ 04:57pm

    All the FTC’s comments were well thought out policy discussion
    Did we read the same filing? Not only does the Federal Trade Commission have no reason to venture into copyright (barring some actual anti-competitive/anti-trust issue with how certain big entities exploit their copyrights), and if this is how they're starting, it's neither "well thought out" nor "good".
    It’s like letting end users misuse the products we create and then president’s nuclear arsenal red button would be given to fucking monkeys.
    There's a HUGE difference between perceived copyright violations and allowing monkeys access to the President's nuclear codes. One has the potential to cause the end of the world as we know it, while the other just affects the bottom line of a few copyright-loving gatekeepers. I don't even think the threat of Nuclear War was anywhere near the threat level most sane copyright maximalists say is coming if we don't stop piracy by (check notes) limiting fair use, which doesn't even apply to pirates anyway. Second, it shouldn't even be a question of if fair use applies. The right to train is the right to read. If you buy a physical book, you are allowed to read it as many times as you like. That in and of itself shouldn't be a question of possible copyright infringement. If a human is allowed to do it, why is a computer not allowed to? Copyright belongs nowhere near AI, be it training AI or somehow granting copyright protection on AI-generated works. Nothing about that should be an "unreasonable extension of end user powers". It's simply reading the law exactly as it is currently written. And by the way, an end user using your product in a way you do not like is not a misuse or an infringement. No amount of your "babbling" will change that!

  • On the post: FTC Gets Fair Use Backwards, Claims It’s Somehow Anti-Competitive?

    Rico R. ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2023 @ 03:34pm

    Aaaand just like that...

    ...the aforementioned pig has crash landed into a prison for the competitively insane.

  • On the post: When Even Hollywood Doesn’t Want To Expand Copyright Laws To Deal With AI…

    Rico R. ( profile ), 07 Nov, 2023 @ 01:31pm

    Sees Techdirt article title Me: What? Looks up at window Sees a pig flying Me: Is this a dream?

  • On the post: Judge Dismisses Most Of The First Of The Many ‘How Dare AI Train On My Material’ Lawsuits

    Rico R. ( profile ), 01 Nov, 2023 @ 11:07am

    If training AI is infringement, then so is all creativity.

    Suppose you read a copyrighted book. You like it so much that it inspires you to create your own original story in the same genre/style. This work is NOT fanfiction or derivative in any way. It's completely your own original work (at least within the meaning of copyright law). You get that story published, and during an interview, you mention the one book that gave you inspiration to create your story. Upon hearing this, the author sues you for copyright infringement, despite the two works bearing no substantial similarity. The author posits that since you wouldn't have had gotten that inspiration but for you reading the author's work, then this somehow amounts to unauthorized copying of the work. Any judge would throw out the whole suit on a motion to dismiss. Now suppose that instead of a human reading a book and creating a new work in a similar genre/style without copying anything, it's a computer program. The computer program in question is some form of generative AI (like Chat-GPT if we keep the book example). The AI was trained on the book, which doesn't copy the book into its data set, but rather ingests its content in a neural network, and puts what it learns in its data set. Then, someone uses that training data and gives it a prompt to write a story in a similar genre as the book it was trained on, and it spits out something that is NOT substantially similar to the original work it was trained on. If the author sues the AI company (and maybe the user who published the AI's output) for copyright infringement, then how is it any different from what the human creator did in the first example? But because it's a computer doing what a human would normally do, somehow this changes the analysis? That is what all these AI suits are arguing, likely from a misunderstanding as to how the technology works (I guarantee that the data set of images in the suit mentioned in this story is NOT simply compressed copies of the images that are at issue). If a judge rules that this is infringement, then copyright law will become distorted so much that it reflects exactly what we critics of copyright have been saying for a long time: There is no such thing as a 100% original work. Every work is based on something that came before, whether it be an inspiration-type example like my first example above, or something that is more emblematic of remix culture. Like Kirby Ferguson said, everything is a remix. This debate about copyright and training AI is only putting this fact more at the forefront.

  • On the post: Judge Dismisses Most Of The First Of The Many ‘How Dare AI Train On My Material’ Lawsuits

    Rico R. ( profile ), 01 Nov, 2023 @ 10:37am

    Not true in the US. See Title 17 U.S. Code, Section 411 and the SCOTUS ruling in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com.

  • On the post: States All Gang Up To Sue Meta Based On Highly Questionable Theories Of ‘Harm’ To Children

    Rico R. ( profile ), 25 Oct, 2023 @ 12:23pm

    Redacted AF

    How are we supposed to take this complaint seriously with all these redactions? Is the "fact" that Meta is harming kids somehow a threat to national security? Or is it more so to cover up their own inadequacies with their research and corresponding complaint? I have my own theory as to why they want to cover it up. It's because the States *********** ***** ********, and ********** ****** *************. Therefore, it's obvious that Meta ***** at fault, and to ******, telling the truth is **************. That's just my take!

Next >>