This is the part of a larger conversation that foreshadows 'augmented humans', which are only a few years away. Enhancing our own capabilities with cybernetic agents is not something which will be easy to regulate. The only difference here is that the AI agent in its current form is external to the humans.

Just because we have ears doesn't mean we're not allowed to use ear enhancers.
And just because we have brains doesn't imply that we're not allowed to have knowledge enhancer agents to help [some among us] get smarter.
These will become so commonplace that no one will bat an eye at any of this, besides which real-time generative music that never repeats will also render such claims obsolete.

TL;DR: For now if they don't want to have that music listened to, imitated or copied, they should consider keeping it safely off the Internet.

This in a nutshell, TBH... ALL OF IT

The data sets have been trained already, and unless we can magically turn the clock back to 1995, turn the entire Internet off and outlaw usage of generative AI software that's open-source, this virtue signaling designed to grabs headlines seems very unlikely to accomplish anything. The only solution would appear to be to prevent everyone from freely accessing the network, except through a licensed device, and further to this from listening to anything that's not label-approved

Sort of the equivalent of MAGA but in the record business instead of politics. They only wanna bring back old times when they ruled the roost and controlled the entry points.

That ship sailed long ago.

What does this accomplish?

Last I checked, there still is an endless amount of freely available tools that allow ripping of YouTube content, including some like JDownloader2 which have been downloaded around 1 billion times.

Is this another re-run of Caddyshack where Bill Murray plays whack-a-mole trying to shoot the gophers under the lawn?

Not to take anything away from the legal protection of artwork which has been created by humans (which will probably survive in its current form), but one can wonder the point of getting into a big and heated discussion when it comes to IP and generative art. Especially given that within a few years such art will be rendered in real time, never to be repeated and possibly adapting to circumstances, environmental factors and whatever other outside stimuli.

Why worry about copyright when there'll be a quasi-infinity of new forms instantly available which will be ever-changing and totally ephemeral? Not sure what this 'art' will evolve to be, and as I wrote there will still be the need for protection of works created by human hands and minds. But why concern ourselves with something which no one will ever bother copying because more of it constantly keeps getting generated on-demand? This will be a question all content owners need to ponder, lest they find themselves controlling large catalogs of expensive works no one cares about, wants, or even know that they exist?

One could wager that the only IP worth worrying about will be the generative software used to create such works, and possibly some other related tools. When it comes to mass-marketed goods, it's going to take us a while to really wrap our heads around this new and very inescapable reality.

That's kind of what I thought as well. Rewarding those who get you the traffic and eyeballs makes the most sense.

There are several tools and extensions available that address this particular issue you raised. For example FediAct, which is available for both Firefox and Chrome.

Learning to customize and get the most out of Mastodon does require extra work for sure, hopefully some slick new clients for mobile platforms are emerging like Ivory (iOS); and obviously newcomers will still need to make the effort to understand the new paradigms of the Fediverse.

But overall - and even if the market share never rises above the perennially dismal Linux desktop percentages-, I'd say it's already been a very positive and enriching experience. ymmv!

This gem of an idea would have the distinction of being like the ultimate #whatcouldpossiblygowrong on a planetary scale.
Especially interesting is that it's a wholly untested theory, that there's no way to backtrack from it and punishing those responsible for wasting our time with this drivel would accomplish zilch.

...and being greeted by....

THE FACEBOOK BUTTON ITSELF!

That being said, count me among the slim minority who never uses social credentials to log onto any other web sites. Never really could bring myself to trust it.

If the percentage of believers can go down by 6% in a mere five years, as long as this data point leads to a linear curve we could be completely rid of it in a few decades. ...wishful thinking.

The expense of technical implementation would stand to be insane. Copyrighted works are increasing by hundreds of thousands weekly. With sampling, licenses, limited clearances and the likes, the number of false positives would create endless nuisance, and people who are determined to upload something will find a way to easily do it in an encrypted and containerized manner which will evade any such detection all the same.

What's truly nightmarish is that this feels like The Ghost Of Hillary Rosen in cluelessness. Some people working for the copyright cartels seem as if they're making their best effort to prove that they never had much of an idea of how The Internet actually works, they still don't today and they're trying to apply all sorts of outdated, already obsolete methods of detection which will just turn out to be a massive annoyance to everyone while being totally ineffective except perhaps against 8 year-old kids.

Granted, it will represent a cushy and comfortable stream of income for those tasked to deal with the enforcement side of it, but otherwise it's an astonishingly pigheaded idea that can only bring a world of pain, annoyance and frustration on the global population of netizens.

There's a price for copyright, but there should also be a price for causing other people to waste their time.

... a sizable number of us have moved on from drinking the Cupertino Kool-Aid and are getting our work done on other less expensive platforms. The OS and hardware are irrelevant, the software available to get the job done is all that matters, within budgetary considerations. My personal take is that I can't really justify paying such a high premium for Apple hardware anymore, I felt differently about this in 1997.

Very happy to be reading these news. Hopefully this will be a giant kick in the butt to other PC laptop makers to get on that SOC level of performance with reduced power consumption and the accompanying noise from cooling systems.

As someone who's abandoned the Apple walled garden a few years ago, my use case doesn't really warrant getting one of these machines because it's first and foremost about the software available, and most of what I use runs natively on Windows (or to a lesser extend Linux, which obviously can be made to run on OS-X with Homebrew or other similar frameworks).

The only thing that would make me pay these premium prices would be the NEED to run a piece of software so compelling that I couldn't live without it, and which only existed on OS-X. Yeah, there are a few offerings like Logic X and Final Cut Pro. Both have heavy competitors, and are matched or bested in feature-for-feature shootouts. Still, excellent news for the aforementioned reasons.

Just stick to groups you have an interest in or participate in on a regular basis, and ignore the rest of the digital floatsam. Am I missing things? Most likely... but the return on the investment of time spent parsing through crap algorithmically fed to me by a 'suggestion engine' doesn't feel like it's worth the time in question.

"The Feed Is For Cattle"

Not even sure how to react to a spokesperson making a statement like this, it implies that we're so gullible and stupid that it's sort of freakish. Then again, in certain parts of the world it's been proven that a large portion of the populace can be made to believe the dumbest conspiracy theories and lies, so in that context it makes sense they'd try it.