IMO there is a lot wrong with this analogy, from the actual time needed to pprepare the food being spent already to the payment being mandatory vs ads not being watched (9whether blocked, or letting them run but not actually watching them by turning away) the content is still delivered.

Where do the people who don't mind ads but are respponding fit into your charactarization? How does YT adding more ads, more unskippable ads, being arguably something that lead to a rise in adblock usage fit into your charactarization?

Make it harder for people to access content legally, people find ways around it... even illegally. Something-something "water is wet," "the floor is made of floor," and so-on, and so-forth...

IDK, it seems like this could be a potential false dichotomy - and, PURELY IMO, one engrained into us, massaged into us by those who want to maximize their profits. It's actually really clever. Nothing stops a company from paying slighly less to C-suites and putting that money into the quality of their content or products, for instance. (A move that I would argue would be a disaster if forced by govt to be clear / before people wonder if I am advocating for more regulation, though it becomes harder and harder each day to remain confident in a lack of govt intercepting these practices as time goes on)

Do you have a citation for that? Not to be a dick, but it seems like an area of law that is very unsettled - and I legitly don't know, were there robots.txt files that were ignored?

Wouldn't it be easy in terms of technically being copyrighted if talking about a work that is made in any country where copyright is automatic? Maybe I am being a dumbass in asking this... but my greater point is the flaw of just hyperfocusing on copyright status as being the line to draw in the sand - in that, if for instance, people are conditioned to think "copyrighted automatically == off limits" - and that thinking gets into legislative efforts, that'd kill off a lot of efforts to make training data with explicitly opt-in, and creative commons works potentially, since those are still technically copyrighted works.

Be fair; drawing an analogy can be flawed, but the analogy doesn't require thinking it's human - since you're comparing functionality of one system or component to something else that tries to replicate it.

If you had a prosthetic leg that actually functioned perfectly like a real one, comparing its functionality wouldn't automatically be saying "it's a real leg." People who make this argument, IMO, miss that scope where the attempted comparison is being made - even if that doesn't change the flaws that exists with said comparisons.

Do you mean "in the training data" I thought the dataset used for image training doesn't (or isn't) supposed to have actual image data in it IIRC at least.

IMO this is something that absofuckinglutely needs legislation, and needed it yesterday. This is getting beyond stupid.

Another edge case: Railfans, I bet, would love a tiny camera that fit on their glasses if it could record in 1080 or 2160p - no more futzing with tripods (which also would restrict them from stations that don't allow tripods without permits but otherwise allow filming etc), no more holding their phones and getting shaky footage from being unable to hold it steady (or from trying to hold their phone and wave to get the engineer to honk their horn), etc.

VERY strong disagree; copyright should never have been expanded to it being "author's life plus ," and it shouldn't be normalized as OK. There was and still is a reason behind the rights ending merely 14-28 years originally - part of copyright in the constitution, to promote:

Basically, it expired WITHIN the lifetime so the public domain had a regular influx of new material, and so that creators who would benefit from their copyright, would still have to create, which'd perpetuate the cycle of creation, and eventual public domain enriching.

Why? Why should likeness rights be forever? If we are going to do it in a manner similar to IP laws, there HAS to be a limit, it CAN NOT be forever. Think of the implications that could have.

That explains why so often the titles I get are utter shit, and many of the articles I've been getting lately seem really incoherent.

//

*Copyright infringing. If it were merely being copyrighted that made distributing it bad then you wouldn'ty be able to share that Creative Commons licensed song you or someone else made, since it'd still be a "copyrighted work" due to copyright in the US being automatic upon an eligible work being put into a fixed tangible medium.
/pedanticMode

Not copyrightable if you just take what is generated, but if you modify it enough, it can absolutely IIRC - making it not useless per-se (depending on how much human touch is needed).