A monkey pressing the shutter button gets the same result as the human doing so. The creative element is the human having them press the button.

It seems that you failed to realize the reference. The Monkey pressing the button to Take her own Selfie is a specific case already ruled by the US government as Non-Copyrightable. Having the animal press the button is Not a human creative element eligible for copyright protection.

The human having them press the button is the very argument for copyright-ability that was in fact argued and Rejected by the government. It wouldn't matter that the human set up the camera beforehand and had special settings applied before the monkey took the photo, either. Camera settings on their own wouldn't even meet the threshold for copyrightability

If I roll glue on a paper and toss up some confetti and let air currents drop it randomly it is still my creative work and eligible for copyright by me even though ACTUAL random processes placed the visual elements.

You can try to make that argument: But you would almost certainly not be granted protection for the specific pattern of Confetti you got randomly. You had better have a unique glue pattern or something, involved in the work and deliberate in your process that incorporates a human's creative expression no matter how small, in the work, such as your framing or manner of presenting that pattern within a larger work, or the whole result is likely non-copyrightable; the creative expression does not have to be massive, but parts of a work that are the human creative expression are the Only kind of elements copyright protects. Unprotected elements are the parts of your work that anyone else would be free to copy - if there's no exclusive right, the parts that can be separated from protectable elements are public domain.

The creativity came in the form of deciding to do such a thing

The decision to do something is Not a copyrightable nor protectable element for a work. You can create many things which are Not copyrightable. Copyright law does not protect the decision to do something, nor the sweat of the brow, etc, just like Ideas, Methods, General styles etc are not protectable.

Do I need to distinguish between my creative elements and those introduced by outside agency? No, random processes have no agency or creative elements.

You do not have to make this distinction as an author. But if you ever want to register the Copyright formally or go to court and claim another work infringes upon yours, Then as part of the process you have to break your work down into Elements you created which you believe Are Original, the expression of your human creativity, and the expression found inside your work you are claiming a right to exclude others from using.

Elements outside your agency like the result of natural process you didn't control are not your creativity and they are called Unprotected Elements. Meaning they are parts of your work which are not your original authorship. You have the freedom to include as many unprotected or public domain elements in your work as you want, but you don't have exclusive rights to unprotected or public domain elements.

If your work consists ONLY of natural process, then you may not have Any exclusive rights to the work at all. That is the case of the Monkey who took a selfie of itself... The person who owns the camera has the right to use it; You can even claim it as yours, but they have no exclusive rights (You can't prevent others reproducing it) since No element of the work was the product of human authorship; this 100% of the elements in the selfie are not protectable by copyright.

In the case of TTS the user is calibrating inflection, style variation, adjusting outputs until they find a model and combination which suits their creative tastes

You say that, but in reality maybe they are just pasting the book's text into a TTS, and clicking "Regenerate", until the AI spits out something they like, And the style variation or Inflection is non-copyrightable. Claiming copyright against someone in court ultimately requires being able to prove Copying of elements from your work AND that those specific elements are the Author's personal original creative expressions actually authored by the human.

The user would be processing the book in segments and chunks or at least going back to portions and reselecting, discarding and curating the outputs to their tastes.

Copyright only protects authors. Selectively Discarding or Approving items on its own, merely curating works, is considered Not to be authorship of those works. Even giving an Artist vague instructions and continually Disapproving their result until you get lucky and they randomly give you what you want does Not make you the author of their art piece.

These things don't just run on autopilot like some people think. Much like a 3D printer or CNC ..

No, However not all work is authorship. Even if you were creative in how you went about doing the work. For example we don't afford copyright protection to the person at the print shop who pressed Control+P to print the file you sent them -- Not even if they exerted a great amount of creativity in optimizing their business process, carefully tuned their printers to make sure they would use just the right amount of ink, And started curating at their own discretion which Pages of your document they would print using different methods, and what pages they would exclude from the final book.

You need to be able to prove that your human creativity is expressed in a work itself, And not that you Iterated a machine until it came up with this.

there is a creative element in operating the machine

Similarly... Photocopy machine authors don't get a copyright on the outputs of the machine. Not even if they have to very finely tune it to achieve a desired exposure level.

It doesn't matter how hard your job is, how many settings you have to tune to work your machine, Or how creative you have to be to get your machine to work. To get that "copyrightable creative expression" - you had to have directed or created the expression, not caused the expression.

It was the first wearable AI pin, sort of like a star trek communicator. And it was terrible.
 
But every time someone writes a 500 word article about those two facts, it gets a million clicks and tons of ad revenue, so they're gonna continue to do it until people stop clicking on the headline.

There are limitless variations of possible outcome from the process and how they collapse depends on how the user configured the AI software used for the purpose. If two people do this, it wouldn't have the same result.

This is true, but because of the way AI systems work -- the person who uses AI to create something essentially has a much higher burden of proof to show that each of the elements of the work they wish to claim protection on Are actually elements that Come directly and deliberately from their human creativity, and not an algorithmic equivalent to a "random number generator".

The way the AI systems work creates what is likely a Refutable presumption for each element of the resulting work - that it came out that way by random chance and not due to the author's creativity.

In fact... Algorithms such as stable diffusion, etc, use seeds to lay down randomly generated noise, So the result tends to be very different even if two users utilized exactly the same settings. That's analogous to the "monkey pressing the shutter button" - if the creative elements you found in the work were first introduced by luck or someone or something else outside your agency directly introducing them, and not a calculated output you were pursuing by your own mind and hands.

just a different tangible medium.

If you used an AI to create a new book, then it's the same medium. It is Not a copy in the literal sense, and it's quite a bit different from photocopying - suppose the original is in English, and you ran it through the AI page by page to create a French version.

This would be infringing, because it's just an adaptation -- even if you used an AI.

In order to be a derived work, it would have to be a new work

No.. In order for the new author to claim their own copyright on the Derivative work it would have to be a new work And Authorized by the rightsholder to the original work.

This can still be a derivative work; just an unauthorized derivative. It is a "new" work - Just one that may enjoy No or very limited additional copyright protection besides the original authors' copyright Which fully applies to the new work, And the new author Does not have the exclusive rights to their new version If it is unauthorized.

If A new work contains enough copying to Implicate the other work's production work, then the new work is a derivative work
friggin' auto-correct:

If A new work contains enough copying to Implicate the other work's REPRODUCTION RIGHT, then the new work is a derivative work

Is this considered derivative work?

If A new work contains enough copying to Implicate the other work's production work, then the new work is a derivative work, Yes. That is how you can establish that something is a derivative work in court (By showing similar parts of the original work contained in the new work).

This is AI generated so it is not copyright-able?

Copyright does not extend to parts of a work that are not of human authorship, But it would be incorrect to assert that the entire work is non-Copyrightable.

If I buy the book and generate an AI version is that copyright infringement?

The mere act of Generating an AI version on your own for your own use would not be infringement.

But it would Likely end up being an infringement on the rights of the original work, the moment you reproduce and distribute your AI-generated version.

Except if your new version is Fair Use; which is unlikely if you just used an AI to create a new version of the existing work -- This would have to be determined by a court actually, but if you just had AI rewrote every paragraph to use different words to say the same thing, then the court would very likely be able to find probative similarity between your generated work and the original.

but it's not going to always recognize a particularly dramatic note or appreciate a sarcastic statement.

I'm sure authors will eventually be able to include tags to identify the rising tension; there are already markup languages such as SSML for this.

If not it will probably still end up being cheaper to pay someone to write markup tags for your speech rather than hire an exclusive voice.

Maybe so... A big issue would appear to be the "Decentralized" part of DeFi Is not actually that decentralized.

So long as there is an Identifiable corporation running transactions that has access to the assets And can be targeted by a lawsuit;
it's not really "De-centralized" finance, now is it?

Unless you have a 7x24 N hr response add-on support contract they aren't going to answer it at 2am.

Well if you have that, then they take your call, and there are some things they can help with, and some things not so much. It doesn't guarantee the vendor has dev resources committed 24x7 to isolate a software fault.

I mean... for 2AM emergencies, you would be better off 99% of the time by having employees of your own company who would be able to self-support the network, unless what you require is a replacement of parts.

TAC is who you call to assist with the diagnosis and work on the following days After you have replicated the issue On equipment in a Lab, which is hopefully long after you've Figured out a workaround to get the Prod network back up.

It is possible that Cisco sold one or more of those contracts without realizing that at least some of the environment was fake ...

In my experience; Cisco would Not even activate a Smartnet contract without you Uploading a list of Serial Numbers for all the units you are putting under that contract.

I guess in theory it is Not impossible that there aren't Fake units with valid Unique serial numbers that happen to match Units w/a Legitimate status in Cisco's database, but it seems pretty unlikely.

My suspicion is if people are buying them on eBay that they Aren't actually attempting to activate Support for them, as the hardware maker would likely be able to detect something's wrong very quickly Once the legitimate unit on that serial number gets enrolled and suddenly they have Two different customers trying to put the same serial under contract.

Yes, I thought there was a requirement for owners to actually use IPV4 addresses

The IP Numbering system is a public resource technically.. Internet sites require Unique addressing in order to communicate with each other and Create the whole internet ecosystem as we know it: For the network to work... We all have to agree about who gets to use which Network Address ranges, So all the network operators have Decided over their own free will that IANA gets to Create a database delegating IP Addresses to whoever they want based on their Policies, And we all agree to go with whatever IANA says In order to create a well-coordinated system.

In this sense; the Requirement to Have and Keep IP Addresses are Whatever the hell IANA says they are. IANA Themself created a Delegation system which Allocates major blocks out to separate Organizations called Internet Registries, And each Region of the world has an Internet Registry that Assigns and Removes Assignments of IP Addresses, AND Sets all the rules.

You don't have an IP Address without an allocation from either IANA directly or from one of these registries. And the Database is the property of that registry, So you have no "property ownership" in that sense -- You might have a contractual right to maintain some entries in their Database, based on an Adherence to the registries' policies and agreements you signed with the registry. That generally requires maintaining an Ongoing service with the registry and Paying annual fees to keep your registration, But also, the registry can change the rules. You won't have a Permanent assignment agreement guaranteeing you Ownership of range of IP Addresses until the end of time... that Is up to whatever the Community Rules, Active Contracts, and Number Policies are that are in place at the time.

Currently You have to provide Justified need in order to be assigned IPv4 addresses. This is a technical criteria based on network design and how many Customers and Hosts you have which require IP Addresses.

It has long been the Number Registry's position that IP Addresses are not property - Historically, they are administered by IANA policy and never regarded as property. For starters the earliest IANA allocations are Simply assigned without so much as charging a fee. You are assigned IP Addresses you need (if they are available to assign) for your network based on assignment or allocation criteria - Not "sold" IP Addresses. In fact, your registration cost does not historically change based on the number of IP Addresses -- in modern times the NA registry DOES muddy the waters slightly by Charging a larger amount of money for larger assignments, And a higher membership fee for ISPs based on the gross number of active addresses allocated.

If you Don't have the justified need in accordance with the RFC2050, then a Transfer or Assignment of IP Addresses to your organization is supposed to be rejected by the registry.

Numbers for use with the IPv4 Protocol are co-ordinated by IANA and regional registries. These entities administer the assignment of resources according to Number Resource Policies which are adopted through community process, And can be changed through the community process.

Current policy is Not to revoke IP Addresses solely for lack of use; That means if you have justified need in the past and No longer have justified need -- You are Expected to renumber, but the registry does Not force you to renumber, Although ARIN has a contractual Right to audit your address assignments If you maintain registrations with them, and they can exercise that right at any time.

My guess is they're using bluetooth protocol, but over something like S band or whatever is more appropriate

Yeah.. I'm curious what the situation is they're applying the word counterfeit to here.

I know the vendors have a very dim view as to product resales, and it may even be that they consider a Resold genuine unit to be counterfeit if the reseller did not erase all the software from the unit before selling.

I also heard of "Counterfeit SFPs" which are absurd -- the SFP is a standardized module. They are generally all identical from the same suppliers, and Each vendor writes their ID on the chip, and then programs their switch to refuse to use SFP transceivers that were programmed with a different vendor's number.

forcing the IT professional to rely on the trained technical support they paid a lot for and expect to get at 2AM

If that is your plan, then you are kind of screwed. That might be what people think they are paying for, but if you call up Support after hours you'll be lucky if you get an engineer assigned to that case by lunch the next day.

The 2AM "trained" technical support from those vendors is basically useless unless what you require is a hardware RMA; what you need is a few CCIEs around or an on-call consultant, even then it's a next-business day response by the end of the next business day unless your company paid a LOT extra for the highest end support contract.

Sure they can help you get your core switch replaced. This wouldn't be an emergency if the network was designed with redundancy.

TAC won't help troubleshoot the whole network for you at 2 AM and figure out what software glitch or config is breaking your topology - they'll mainly work with you once you have identified the box with the broken part and need send things back for a replacement.

It probably ends up in government server rooms because some Internet Service Provider bought the needed equipment in a Pinch to meet an immediate need, and the official versions have like a 6 Month lead time to order a router, during CovID.

It's generally real working hardware made by the same factory line that produces and assembles the official version.

Meaning it is likely physically identical to the "real" version; Just not Legal.

The "counterfeit" bit is that it's Not created with Cisco's authorization, but it might have their name badge
stamped on it (even if they removed Cisco branding; the company still calls them a counterfeit though).
Also, it's shipped someplace else.

They solved effective AM radio antennas in cars a long time ago. The one in my car works fine. Why would they not make an effective radio now

Because your "effective" AM antenna on the old car is likely built entirely inside the body of your radio.

Your gas-powered vehicle doesn't have to be designed to drive a large amount of current through large magnets (motors), in order to propel the thing.

When the Vehicle is an EV, and no longer gas powered you create a new problem your old gas-powered cars never had to worry about,

The electrical system creates an environment with such EM that you are not able to run that radio from inside the dash, Nope... You are going to need an antenna that far from those electric motors as possible, And heavy shielding of your receiver.

It MIGHT actually be more practical to Have the AM radio somewhere in the trunk; controlled remotely, And send the audio stream over WiFi to the entertainment module.