How is that relevant in terms of making the comparison to learning (regardless of if the analogy itself is still faulty or whatnot?)

"Compete" in what sense exactly?

Plus, copyrights being on par with patents in length before all the extension bullshit meant that creators had to KEEP creating to enjoy their exclusive rights over a particular work (and make new works to get exclusive rights over said work, etc.) - meaning that works were created continuously, AND the public domain was continuously, REGULARLY enriched/expanded.

Honestly, it's the motives that bother me. The core ideas - monitoring, interpreting, hell even directly reading thoughts, I think are inherently useful ideas. It's just I don't trust these companies any farther than I can shit to not want to do these technologies for bad reasons.

To be p[edantic, IMO it is erroneous to say "trained on copyrighted material" as if it being copyrighted is the problem (as opposed to if permission is gained, if permission is needed, etc) - since anything eligible created in a country where copyright is automatic is copyrighted, even if the creator gave permission, and regardless of if permission to use it is needed or not.

Is it even the law, or is it one of those old wives tales, like the old wives tale of how touching baby birds cause their mothers to reject them?

Seems like it (though I could be wrong) - I mean, what's the point of making a backup of media if you have to get rid of the original after making the backup? That doesn't make sense.

So people shnould get their buts to an office because you believe some people not working makes the whole of WFH a fraud? Basically, because your sense of logic is horrible, if even existant?

It exasperated it, but the hatred of going into the office has been a thing for far, far longer. Ever watch Office Space? (Interestingly, the number of software engineers who actually say Office Space, in spite of being a comedy, accurately reflects the hell they feel trapped in surprised me.)

TEr... not wanting to go to an office isn't "not producing," work from home is still working. You're combining two statements (one that is Captain Obvious-ing that people are taking issue with some of the office requirements, and then misconstruing them (while also, I'd argue, missing that the requirements ARE the point of contention and some can be out of date depending on the job).

They did a huge amount of damage, for sure. IMO it already became kinda fucked when we joined the Berne Convention, which IIRC started the ball rolling on copyright durations becoming stupidly long (since (AGAIN IIRC) we extended it to match durations in Europe? Someone please correct me if I got that wrong).

IMO the focus on "using copyrighted works" - making copyright **STATUS** the important part - feels like a hell of a red herring - vs if permission is needed, or granted if it is needed. Anything created in a country where copyright is automatic, and not put in the public domain explicitly, is copyrighted, even works where people would encourage using it in X way or Y way, or want it only used in other ways, if used at all.

Or... something being claimed to "protect kids" doesn't mean it is immune from having issues that can cause problems / need to be addressed, not pushed through because it is claimed to be needed to protect kids.

Your response reads, IMO, as "a predigested response from those unable to handle, or comprehend, the idea of having criticism for something."

*Alleged.

Seeing how copyright cases being fair use or not are IIRC decided on a case by case basis, that's really all that can be said until the litigation runs its course.

Maybe a stupid, stupid question: would one party or two party really matter at all if it were a public place, and not a conversation that is meant to be private (as in, an attempt was not made to make it private), for instance?

Retaliation for protected activities like unionizing would be illegal.

Naw, just because some people are too lazy or stupid to avoid generalizing doesn't mean you're right to keep it going.