They won't want to touch the other side of it either. If what Flock is doing is fine, so is the creeper snapping photos on a public playground and creating a giant database somewhere.

That seems...undesirable.

Yes, there are long running complex lawsuits about all manner of things you might think are intuitively obvious, however just because the last lawsuit was long running and complex doesn't mean the next one about the same thing will be. In theory if the prior court found that header files are public interfaces and don’t have copyright protection the next lawsuit involving copyright on header files will have the defense lawyer point at the prior judgment and saying “we don’t need to litigate this, it was clear two years ago, and nothing has changed to make this any different, we should do that again” and the judge doens’t have to do the exact same thing, but most will, unless the other lawyer has good counter arguments why it is different in this case (and NOT arguments about the original judgment being incorrect). Sometimes the “good arguments” are merely “that case was decided in Californian and we are in Texas, and the laws are different here!”.

Legal matters can be counter intuitive, but more frequently they actually make sense. Early cases about things are complex and long because the legal process tries very hard to make sure they have a good answer, and that they clearly explain the reasoning behind the answers they give, and the limits of the answer. The results of legal battles that reach a verdict are not just a judgment about how a clash between two parties will be resolved, but about how all similar cases should be resolved. Think of a verdict as something that has cached results (but in a system that can do fuzzy matching on cache lines). A settlement on the other hand produces a result between two parties but no new cache entries.

I’m a lot less sure. I would think a lawsuit could start based on object code, and during discovery get source code and continue if the source code looks similar enough. Doing a whole lawsuit on object code would face significant issues convincing a judge/jury that object code is “expressive enough” to manifest copyright. With the defense arguing that wholly independent implementations of something compile down into the same (or substantially similar) object code.

It should be “easy enough” if you think you have some highly similar object code isolated to convince a judge to allow a civil suit to start and to compel discovery of the source code so you can examine how similar actual code (which has already faced court scrutiny about weather or not it is expressive enough to receive copyright protection) is. Even there you can get some suprising results. Like can a Google Employee who was previously an Apple employee and implements the same function at both companies in basically the same way commit copyright infringement? (In something like a topological sort where the algorithm is a known art, it is entirely possable that writing it from scratch for the Nth time produces a line for line identical copy including variable name choices and the bulk of the comments even if the author doesn’t actually consciously remember prior version of the code!)

Agency is just it's ability to act upon it's conclusions. While there is a great argument that AI should not be given agency, it had it.

If you're trying to say it had no sentience, I'll agree with that.

In the same sense that a gerbil has agency but not sentience. It too might escape from a cage.

Just because code quality improves doesn’t mean the code looks like what a human writes. Currently AI code seems to not favor writing lots of functions, do it’ll basically expand out the same code in multiple places. Which I admit is also what jr programmers tend to do and maybe you can quality that as something that is code quality and will improve. You can frequently use a prompt to make it “don’t write the same code multiple times, define functions for anything repeated (maybe over a specific complexity)” & that reduces that issue.

I’ve noticed AI generated Swift tends to not use default arguments much, almost never uses custom operators, and uses unnamed method arguments way more frequently then most human written code. Sort of. A lot of example code and people showing things in forums and doing toy programs “in public” are similar which makes me guess those end up in training data sets more then signifiant works that do most of that stuff. Or I write atypical Swift, and have worked at places that do the same (in part because I get to set the coding standards at some of those companies!). At any rate I think _some_ AI code has “tells” which is largely independent form bug rate if not actually “code quality”.

As a practical issue commercial software is almost always closed code, so nobody can see the source and simply search for anything that might share code with anything they have copyright on. The open source code isopen. So if you have anything copyrighted you can search the open source to see if anything looks like it is worth filing a lawsuit over. Especially if you have a competing product. So if you are say Intel you can check to see if any of gcc is similar to Intel’s commercial compiler and sue claiming any recent declines in sales are directly related to gcc’s “blatant” infringement. Or if you have a non-compiler you can sue and just complain about common stanzas of code but not establish specific damages so it might be a less valuable lawsuit.

You could even sue if your closed source code got that line from AI as long as the employee that the source code control system claims they wrote that one themselves, and as long as your source code control system says that line was written before the open source project had it’s equivalent code (or if your lawyer doesn’t think to check those things, and the OSS’s lawyer doesn’t think to raise it in defense), so at least chances are rare that the OSS code invents the line and commercial closed source steels the line (via AI) and then claims the reverse happened.

Winner! Winner! Chicken Dinner!

Yep, even when AI generated code is human reviewed to determine that the code does what it looks like it should, and has no subtle issues (or only very very subtle ones!), you still have the huge legal issues (the exact ones you identified).

I got Google Play Music for my family back when that was a thing. It was the same price as Spotify, had the same catalog, and included any music on Youtube as well. The fact that it included ad free Youtube was just a bonus. These days that has morphed into Youtube Premium, and I still pay for it. I am mostly there for the music, but the ad free Youtube is not terrible.

The interesting thing is that it is pretty clear that most people just watch the ads. Youtube had $60 billion in yearly revenue last year. More than Disney, NBCUniversal, Paramount, and Warner Brothers combined. Roughly $20 billion of that is credited to Youtube Premium which is bigger than any of its Hollywood competitors.

There's a reason that Peacock is being included with Youtube Premium and not the other way around. Youtube is worth something. Peacock, not so much.

Things have changed dramatically since the heyday when everyone had a cable subscription. I used to work for SlingTV (and then Dish), and I had a front row seat as the whole industry imploded. Every year the television networks and movie studios would sit down and renegotiate their contracts. Despite the fact that viewership was always down at least 10% year over year they always wanted price increases. If the cable providers pushed back (as Dish often did) they would lose access to channels, invariably during football season when it mattered most.

You see, as technology started allowing people to purchase their entertainment piecemeal it soon became clear what parts they were willing to pay for, and which parts they weren't willing to pay for. Hollywood thought that people paid for cable subscriptions to watch their scripted television. It turns out that, for most people anyway, the part of television that they were willing to pay for was live sports.

That's why Disney won't sell you ESPN unless you bundle it with everything else that they sell, and that's also why Disney is suing SlingTV for reselling access on a daily basis. SlingTV's "sports pass" allows you to pay for just the games that you want at a ridiculous price. Disney should be stoked, but instead it has sued because it wants to force sports fans to continue to pay for their other channels.

Almost no one is watching traditional scripted television these days. The few hits that the networks do have tends to be reality TV stuff like "Dancing with the Stars," where the audience can watch people compete in real time. Youtube (not YoutubeTV) has at least half again as many viewers as their next highest competitor (Netflix), at any time during the day, on traditional 10 foot devices (your living room TV). That's not counting people watching Youtube on their phones or their computers. Youtube is killing scripted content on living room televisions, during prime time. During the day its an order of magnitude worse.

Take a look at nielsen.com and take a look for yourself. It's absolutely grim. Look at the shows that are doing relatively well, they are all either sports or sports commentary. That's literally the only reason that anyone watches anything besides YouTube and Netflix.

Apple spent over $20 billion building up a content catalog. At their height they were spending nearly $5 billion a year making shows. They made some great shows and got rave reviews. Amazon spends $1 billion a year for the rights to Thursday night football. That is arguably the worst football game of the week. However, Prime generally gets as many viewers for a single game as Apple has total subscribers, including all of the free subscriptions that Apple gives away. It's not just Apple that is shifting away from scripted television either. Take a look at any of the streaming sites (including Netflix) and you will see that all of their recent moves have been to try and compete for the sports market. That's definitely what YouTube is doing by bundling Peacock.

Hollywood is currently circling the drain. Everyone is up for sale right now. No one is watching scripted television. They certainly aren't paying for it.

The whole bury it for 100,000 years seems to be FUD anyway. That figure leaves the waste less radioactive than the uranium rocks the fuel came from ever were. If we applied the same standard to natural sources we'd be up in arms about banana peel disposal.

Replacing garbage trucks burned by angry villagers can get expensive.

On the other hand, it is actually common to make the duress password VERY similar to the correct password so it looks about the same when you enter it. Especially on something like a phone where you can generally re-load the data later if you want. The consequences of an accidental wipe may be quite small.

Other posible explanations include the defendant remembering the wrong password under pressure. The defendant having any history of mis-typing is irrelevant.

He was definitely right when he said the iBook looked like a Hello Kitty purse.

Or Fat Fingers McSpellsbad typoed the correct password and landed on the duress password instead. We'll never know since in the process he destroyed any evidence of what the passwords might have been.

Fortunately for the defendant, it's up to the prosecutor to PROVE that that isn't how the data came to be wiped.

There is no next move. Netfilx was buying them for their back catalog. The part of WB that people care about is the part that makes new movies and television, and that part is dead no matter who purchases WB.

If you haven't seen the tour of the Warner Brother's lot, you should do that now. They are still even filming some shows there. My guess is that, no matter who owns it they will probably keep something open there as a museum, but the days of it functioning as a working studio are quickly coming to an end. Heck, they are already living in the past. Most of what they talk about when you visit the studio is shows that they stopped filming over 20 years ago.

Still, it is very interesting to see how shows like "Friends" and "Gilmore Girls" was filmed before computers could be used to create whatever shot you needed.