Yes, always true.

Trademarks are based on both their distinctiveness and secondary meanings acquired through use. The more generic or descriptive the term the less likely they'll be found to be valid. Words with no prior meaning (Kodak, Xerox, etc) have the strongest protections. Not quite as good but still strong are combinations or allusions to other things (WordPerfect, Netflix, Comic-Con) and they tend to get into nasty legal fights ("Sand Diego Comic-Con" owning "Comic-Con", fighting against "Salt Lake Comic Con" and "Phoenix Comiccon" and assorted other conventions around the globe). In the 1980s and 1990s Microsoft fought repeated lawsuits to try to maintain protections on terms like "Windows" and "Word", including losing several which is why they keep branded materials as "Microsoft Windows" and "Microsoft Word", which must both be present for the brand to be considered legally distinctive enough.

They're also limited by industry they're used in, (e.g. Apple Computer, Apple Music, Apple Bank, Apple Dry Cleaning, Apple Stationary), and by geography where multiple businesses can use the same marks if they're not in overlapping geographic regions. All remain perfectly valid trademarks.

Visa continues to fight in courts around the world, as trademarks generally don't allow companies to remove words from the dictionary for their traditional names, although some large companies try very hard to seize the words out of common use.

Naming a product "Flow" is incredibly stupid from a legal perspective. These are creative industries with many talented, creative workers. Probably ANYBODY in the product teams could have come up with more distinctive, creative names. A simple brainstorming meeting could have probably come up with 20 other great product names that would have made for strong trademarks.

That's the most compelling evidence I've seen so far, that AI insiders really think their businesses are bubbles. Maybe it really isn't a bubble, but if you think that, you're going against Google's analysis of the situation.

But what do they know? Pffft!

Youtube/google placed the access control and is the only party with standing to sue over the violation.

No, I think you are mistaken, but only due to a funny nuance in DMCA. The copyright owners do have standing (even though they didn't apply the DRM) and Youtube (who did apply the DRM) arguably doesn't!

Behold the legendary 1201(a)(3), where there are a pair of extremely unintuitive definitions, emphasis mine:

(A) to "circumvent a technological measure" means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and

(B) a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

(I'm focusing on 1201(a)(3)(B), though 1201(a)(3)(A) has some interesting implications as well.)

I read this as saying it's the copyright owner who decides whether or not the application of DRM is authorized, not the party who actually applied the DRM. And if the DRM isn't authorized by the copyright holder, then there is no access-limiting technological measure to be circumvented. We never even get around to having to read the definition of circumvention, because there's no [authorized] access control in the first place.

So if you upload your video to youtube, and then youtube, without your authorization, slaps DRM on it, then people who break the DRM and access the video are not violating DMCA!

(They can also be freed of violating DMCA even if you do authorize the application of DRM (1201(a)(3)(B)), as long as you also authorize people to break that DRM (1201(a)(3)(A)), but that's beside the point -- yet also what my sig happens to be about.)

But if you do authorize youtube to slap DRM on it, then people who access the video without your authorization do violate DMCA, and you, not youtube, are the "injured" party when youtube's DRM is broken without your permission.

If you or anyone else reads 1201(a)(3)(B) differently, I would love to hear your views. AFAIK there's no case law on this particular aspect of DMCA, so far.

If the commands to the satellite are also encrypted, they can just have a lower capability chip to decrypt the commands.

My whole point is that if the article is to be believed, then as recently as 2019 (!?) they didn't have even this "lower capability chip." If we were talking about 1959, I'd understand, but 2019? You and I can theoretically order that satellite to turn on a thruster?! That's amazing.

So amazing, that I can't help but wonder if the article is mistaken. But there's enough dumbness in the world that it can't ruled it out, either.

Nothing in the Copyright Act or DMCA, by any fucking stretch of the imagination, supports such an asinine and dumbshit edgelord take.

Here's the text. Control F and type "access" and you will find definitive proof that the law, as written, likely does support asinine and dumbshit edgelord takes. Congress decided asinine and dumbshit edgelord takes are so good, that they enacted asinine and dumbshit edgelord law.

It's right there in the text: "access." (Do you think I'm making this up?)

DMCA does include a lot of definitions, but unfortunately, the word "access" is not one of them, so I guess we have to argue about what that word means. (If you read a book, are you accessing it? If I watch a video, am I accessing it?) I think it's going to be a stupid argument and I hope we don't really have it.

Keep in mind that when the topic in the TFA was actually first handled in court a quarter century ago (MPAA vs 2600, well-covered right here on Slashdot), the asinine and dumbshit edgelord words in the law were called that and the defense urged the judge to take a common sense view, much like yours.

And while I can't find a citation to link to, I do at least remember Judge Kaplan's chilling words: "That's what Congress wrote," as for why he struck down Fair Use a defense. In his view, asinine and dumbshit edgelord takes were the only legitimate takes.

So you're right that the plaintiffs are going to win and the defense is fucked, but that doesn't change the fact that the law, as written, likely does include neuronal representation.

Furthermore, it's actually kind of obvious that DMCA was very much intended to cover neuronal representations, as that's practically what all of 1201(a) is about (circumventing access), as opposed to 1201(b) which tends to cover the more computer-y cases (creating tools to circumvent access).

It's a piece of shit law and needs to be repealed.

In a traditional copyright world (i.e. the actual situation 40 years ago) it's no different.

In a post-1998 copyright world, the difference is DMCA.

“Whether the videos may be viewed by the public is immaterial; the [complaint] refers to technological measures intended to prevent unauthorized downloading,” Judge DeMarchi adds

Bzzt. Just a minor technicality, but the word is "accessing" not "downloading." DMCA makes no distinction whatsoever between viewing vs downloading. The word it uses is "access." Playing a video without authorization from the copyright holder is every bit as covered by DMCA as downloading a video without authorization from the copyright holder.

Sorry if that sounds stupid but I didn't write the law. And I'm not even sure DMCA's internal consistency on this point really is stupid.

"Digital sovereignty" is just a new buzzword that means exactly the same thing as the older, utterly uncontroversial "minimize external/proprietary dependencies" which has whacked every. single. person. here upside the head, at some point in their life.

If your production system can go down because of what someone else does, or has done unto them, that's a problem. Do your customers want to hear "sorry, the site was down for a few hours because AWS was down" or would you prefer them hear "Of course the system stayed up. You think I'm some kind of fuckwit who doesn't care about resilience?"

Sovereignty might be presented as some kind of nationalism, but it's really just about independence and good ol' orthodox common sense. 1) External dependencies suck, and also, 2) competition is good. If you disagree with those two things (?!), then yeah, I can see why you think sovereignty is undesirable.

TFA says Intelsat39, launched in 2019, is a "typical example." And I think they mean a typical example of a satellite "launched years ago without advanced onboard computers or encryption capabilities."

No crypto in 2019? I know these things are planned and designed many years in advance, so they might contain dated components, but even so... wow.

I cancelled my chatgpt subscription earlier this month. Their product is frankly quite bad. My work bought me a claude pro max whatever subsription and... I don't need/want OpenAI's products any more? Whatever lead they had, they've completely lost. Coding xyz is pretty important these days, sure, but everyone seems to have proven this is possible.
 
OpenAI isn't terrible, they're definitely in the top 5.... for now. Whatever breakout advantages they had two years ago, they've squandered, and they have no moat.
 
Take note, most of their valuation xyz stuff at this point is in the $100 billion+ range -- their strategy now is to become "too big to fail", nothing more, nothing less. Anyone with 5 years and $10 billion can train an AI model on par with GPT 5.2. As strategies leak, models like GPT 5.2 and Opus 4.5 will become avalible from less reputable third party providers. Heaven help them when GPT 5.2 or Opus 4.5 models get leaked on bit torrent. And yeah google exists, but fuck them, I finally climbed out of their advertising vortex with Kagi, chatgpt, and others, I am not giving them a dime. Open solutions are fine for replacing google at this point, I am done being a revenue stream for them.

I'm sure for most participants, attending the conference is about staying current on the latest technology and proceedings. For the others, some will be attending for business networking, others for job hunting, but most experts go to the conferences to stay current on the latest things they may have missed.

The most likely reasoning here is petty: "I don't want anybody supporting someone who isn't fully loyal to the brand". It sure smells that way from the announcement and news articles. It isn't about "security for all Americans", but about Party Loyalty (tm), to the point of hatred and snubbing of anything that isn't part of the Party.

The most generous telling I can imagine is that the agency is focusing on the "statutory, core mission" part of the quote, and the "stewardship of taxpayer dollars" means "participants will have to pay for their own tickets". I don't think this is likely, but if I try hard, and I mean *really hard* to think of a way to twist the words that aren't about Party Loyalty, that's the only way I can twist and contort it to make it look like anything else.

I'm sure many professionals will still go to the conference, have already registered, and purchased their plane tickets and hotel room months ago. The question will be what happens after. Based on the past year, I'd wager Party Loyalists will give the long knife treatment to professionals who are doing their job at actual security, but we'll know in a few weeks.

Use ad-blockers, and then "engagement" becomes just another unwanted expense, like it should be. Make 'em say "I sure wish ISPs would cache my site's pages so that not every user has to hit my little server." Party like it's 1995, dudes!

Same. I am not signing up for an app so I can get affordable pricing. I do periodically go to mcdonald's, but only for their 20pc McNuggets which are alarmingly cheap, $7, and while not super healthy, extremely convenient, high protein toddler food

My policy for everything is, "i don't do apps". So far the only negative consequence of this is the mediocre chain barbershops nearest my house won't let me check in over the phone. The only app I have installed on my phone that didn't come by default is WhatsApp.

your argument
 
>shortages of housing are shortages of permits to build houses

and then your justification
 
>urban planning was captured through long march through institutions
 
and then
 
>ideologues that believe raising families, community-based neighborhoods, and even ownership of personal property are all a bad thing
 
.... but total lack of proof or even a hint that your claims could be backed up somewhere. I love it, this is peak 1999 shitposting, keep up the good work