Copy protection on the original sleeping beauty is long expired.
Copy protection on the Disney version is good for years yet.

In the original versions, the scene i quoted? There is no scene like that in the original version. But it is beat for beat straight from the Disney version. If you want to tell a sleeping beauty story, you absolutely can, the original source material not copy protected, you can faithfully tell that story, including the unconscious rape of the princess to impregnate her so that she finally wakes up at child birth... or you can create more family friendly version all your own with whatever you like. But you can't simply lift a bunch of scenes that only exist in the copy protected Disney version and call it your own original interpretation by changing a few details.

The chatgpt story is a ripoff of the Disney version though.

The scene I quoted with the three "magical gaurdians" bestowing three gifts at a celebration crashed by the sorcerous who places the curse -- that is not from the original source material, its not novel either, its a scene ripped straight from the Disney version. And its not an isolated issue with the AI version.

There is no question that Disney doesn't "own" sleeping beauty, but they do own their telling of it. This was an obvious ripoff of that particular telling in several places.

If a child handed in the Moonlit Princess the teacher would give them a lecture about plagiarism. Because its not remotely original enough. It is so clearly taking so many things straight from Disney's version. Sure the names are changed, and the words "aren't the same", but its far too derivative of that particular version to credibly claim its an original telling of the sleeping beauty story.

"No. It is not copyright infringement"

Go ahead, prompt for that story and publish your own 'moonlit princess". It is not a court case you'd win; the details taken from the Disney version are beyond excessive.

" and there's no reason to hold copyright so sacred anyway. Are you seriously wanting to protect hundred year old fairy tails from being retold?"

That's an entirely separate discussion. Legally it is infringement. Whether it should be is completely separate question, or how long it should be are separate questions.

FWIW, I don't agree with copyright being 100 years.

Who is they? And what database are you referring to?

Dictionaries often contain quotes from original source material, or references to where it was first used, or first used a certain way.

Dictionary publishers have never been accused of downloading massive torrents of pirated copies of books and processing them.

Google on the other hand HAS been accused of that, and the decade of litigation related to that ultimately rules that the limited things google was doing with it was fair use. The dictionary companies are likely paying for enhanced access to that google data now.

The AI companies are singing the same fair use tune, but its really quite different. Google was doing it (at the time) to allow for search so you could enter phrase or quote and find the book it was from and the page it was on, and to collect other meta data - word count, word frequency, analyze sentence complexity, etc... all factual information.

AI companies are using the content of that digitized corpus and everything else they can get their hands on to generate new content, much of which non-factual in nature, and often very arguably explicitly creatively derivative.

prompt: "Make a story like sleeping beauty" ... 2 seconds later we have "The Moonlit Princess" and we'll just self-publish that on Amazon... boom I'm an author!

You seriously telling me this is NOT copyright infringement? Even if you wanted to argue that sleeping beauty is a classic fairytale from the 17th century and not under copyright, the prose above is a pretty blatant Disney ripoff.

yeah, I was (jokingly) thinking to myself,
Ok, shield one side of the exposure plate.
Attach the exposed side to the astronaut.
Take a spacewalk.
Develop plate.

Tada! Instant xrays.

It's the time change that's the problem. Otherwise being near the timezone border would be an issue.

Thats a aloe and you know it.

You are the one that said: “There are bigger points.” Why do you lie so much?

None of these points have anything to do with what he said. You are introducing strawman arguments.

How does jobs in China or Vietnam create jobs in the US again? You seem to missed the whole part that where I said: " Not much difference when it comes to US jobs assembling those phones."

Maybe not as painful Intel x86 on TSMC silicon which happened last year.

But poster's point is still valid. Making the chips here only to ship them overseas for the device to be assembled. The only difference is assembled in Vietnam or India instead of China. Not much difference when it comes to US jobs assembling those phones.

As someone who has a Windows laptop with touch, I don’t have much use for touch. Even though Windows started to incorporate more touch beginning with Windows 8, many things are still mouse and keyboard driven. For example, many sites I use still rely on mouse over features or have very small control elements that are not touch friendly. With more applications becoming cloud based, it is more likely I will not use touch

You can replace your entire BMW seat if you like with seats from another vendor. Put in a racing seat, or even install a seat you designed yourself.

This probably was not the brilliant analogy you thought it was going to be. :p

Ontday ebay idiculousray. Onlyay ealray anguageslay orkway. Iay ouldshay ebay oodgay otay ogay.

I guess Tesla will have to hire their own remote drivers now, in order to continue the FSD charade. Hopefully they'll be better trained and remember my preferred routes for once.