Additionally (re: my first reply) isn't it also falling for the assumption that solely one factor has a particular cause, when you've not evaluated other contributory factors, taken said factors into consideration? IMO "SOLELY X causes Y" is not true in every last case ever.

That's assuming it is actually true in the first place though, doesn't it? Wouldn't just bying into this without question be at the least part of the problem (seeing companies are not immune to bending the truth or outright lying)?

Horseshit.

Asking for more options, more diversity in options isn't necessarily asking for THIS, THIS is a way it manifests itself - but not THE ONLY way it can manifest itself at all.

I'm not sure that's what those words mean - people going about those things in foolish ways, scummy people trying to claim to be working on said technologies, doesn't make the technologies themselves canards.

If lab grown meat can be allowed to develope, I'd take it over the hyper processed alternatives that exist now that's for sure.

If you set the problem at copyright status alone, which is flawed - anything created in a country where copyright is automatic, and not explicitly put in the public domain is copyrighted, even things where permission is graned to redistribute. FFS can we stop using copyrighted as a synonym for bad or wrong? What matters here is licensing or lack thereof, whether licensing is needed, etc.

*Weasely; I accidentally a letter. Ugh.

And because of how it interacts with the hardware, by extension restricting what you can do with it - not that even if it were somehow mystically confined to the software only the argument would be any better IMO.

What a wasely, and cunty justification, IMO.

Heh, reminds me of once when I was a kid. My Dad told me to look both ways while crossing a street. I was looking left and right constantly in response, and ended up running into a traffic cone.

IMO DMCA bullfuckery is a big part of the problem. Another is the duration of copyright.

IMO, the U.S had it right before joining the Berne Convention, and allowing corporate lobbying to expand the duration of copyright. Short durations benefit everyone. Thery give creatorsd an incentive to keep creating (or to find unique qays to use their own works once the rights expire), give the public domain continuous, and consistent updates/increases in size, and allow more elements (not just whole works, but small parts of a work that one argues can fall under copyright protection) to be used in new works without fear of litigation hell.

No more "Life of the author + ." It should be "Life of the author or 28 years, whichever is shorter." That way the rights don't die if the author prematurely dies, but the rights are still clamped to a period well within an author's lifetime. Hell, maybe more controversially, it should be retroactively applied to works based on their date of publishing so that things that should have become public domain a long time ago can finally become public domain like they should be.

It really, really is. Why can't we just focus on what is best for the particular thing being programmed (/ specific way of going about it), focus on advancing those languages and tools where and when needed, and stop this fucking dick waving contest? ~_~

Oh horseshit. The companies who made these streaming networks are the ones who chose the implementations, the way to go about it, or to change how they go about it. That is not the user's fault, never has been, and never will be. You're literally taking away agency for others that exists, and smacks you right in the face.

Depends on how big that plural is (since an X of say 1, or even 40, or 100 would hold less weight potentially than 300, 2,000, 20,000, etc, but all of these are plurals). Also depends on if we are dealing with absolute universal statements (like "for every X, all X also are Y") in which you do need merely a single counter-example to render the statement false.

But that's the thing, many open source models are not tied to any company, and many can absolutely be made that aren't tied to any one company. Not to mention that it is still the internet, if it is avaiable online publicly, people will get to it.

How would you legally require it for models not hosted in the country(/countries) where such legislation would hypothetically be implemented? How would you handle the existence of open source models without requiring intrusive surveillance to achieve the goal?

*sigh*

That assumes "the work being copyrighted" is the problem - and not the permission or lack thereof, and whether or not permission is needed, which IMO is dangerous thinking.

And ignores that anything eligible created in a country where copyright is automatic is copyrighted.

We really need to shift away from the copyright STATUS being the key focus, otherwise we are gonna risk creating more problems - problems for us, and creators, that benefit the corporations we're concerned about in the first place. For example, the idiots ho say "just make it illegal to train on any copyrighted work," ignoring the automatic nature of copyright, and that this would make it impossible to make opt in models (since those works would still be copyrighted works).