"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.

Besides using fingerprinting for networked devices, mostly the information on what's being used is out there anyway. BSDs used to be massively popular because they were what ran on what you had when you had pretty much anything. Now that's Linux, some version of it anyway. And if anyone really cares, they can dust off those old architectures on some kernel version.

The BSD license was favorable enough in its time, and it led BSD to significant success. But it didn't protect the people and corporations willing to give away the most code, which is why Linux dominated. Now it enjoys network effects. Why would I not want things to work as much the same as possible on everything I need to work with? Especially since it runs on everything.

Yes, there is still BSD out there, but there's very little reason for someone to use it as the basis of a product except wanting the option to abuse their user base. Apple went with NeXTStep not just because of The Jobs, but also because of the appeal of the license. It matches walled gardens.

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.

They are NOT bad... what measurement matters? They usually make a huge amount of money and get customers even if they lose money they still got more customers/sales than the quality film you put up against it. Marketing gets a majority of the credit in my opinion. A large portion goes to the masses and their popular taste... Yes, it's a formulaic pattern, which is bland and predictable but it also polishes up turds so they are barely tolerable for us; the outliers, while the masses eat it up like it's junk food. If you are not eating polished turds all the time, you do not get sick of it... and maybe you have less experience with actual nourishment so you don't know how shit it is.

Because the dictionary publishers didn't copy all those works into their training corpus

They didn't write the ad copy that way on purpose.

As my local democrat officials, and a 3rd party official said to me in person over the years of talking about the matter say: their messaging does not get out to people no matter how good or poor it might be; that is, unless it's a massive screw up. They will give coverage if they crash and it'll help burn them afterwords.

Oh, and I knew a former news director for a major city's local news show... and his job was picking typical news topics from the news feed and sending the couple staff out to follow up if needed. He was yelled at for doing his actual job; because it was supposed to be news about local VIPs and nothing negative about their paying advertisers! You weren't allowed to MAKE news unless it was huge or somebody out of favor (often Dem or 3rd party.) Always had to put an effort for the "other side" for even idiotic ... like UFO nut vs professor or religious idiot vs evolutionary biologist etc. The journalism degree was useless because it conflicted with the job. Also, do not do anything to upset people while they ate diner watching the news. This is why they don't have shouting matches with pundits like cable news fills up time with - they don't shop for outrage bait either. It's bland and even controversies are made bland and the anchor talks of death with a gleam in her eyes.

When Bill Clinton signed the CDA in 1996, he chortled that it would increase competition. Of course it did the exact opposite, and led to the dominance of Fox News and Sinclair Media and the death of factual reporting. It's not quite ded yet, but this is the move that will lead to our having ONLY full-on state media allowed in our supposedly free country.

Play some songs I haven't heard before, when it cannot know what I have heard, is the perfect example of something AI cannot do. The AI company claiming it can do so is indistinguishable from when AI claims it has done something it cannot do because there is not enough information, but it will give you its fabricated horseshit answer with full confidence.

You have the perfect nickname for a BSD enthusiast. The whole reason I wound up running Linux was BSDickhead elitism. I had done multiple installs of various Unixes including SunOS on a sun3, which is not only BSD, it's weird and you have to do weird shit to install it. But since the BSD documentation was shit at the time that told you nothing you needed to know, I found myself a little stuck on stupid shit like how big my partitions should be. I even know some FreeBSD users and as it turned out, they were fucking worthless and treated me like an idiot for asking questions the documentation would have answered if it were any good.

So I installed slackware and that was that, the install was trivial, the community was orders of magnitude more helpful and welcoming, the documentation was actually useful. I've installed a lot of different BSDs over the years (including on some IBM model 135s for example) and literally all of them were better than FreeBSD was then, even the ones that are older than that!

BSDicks can only blame themselves for Linux eating their lunch.

"BSD today is bigger than Linux."

Hahhahahahahahbahahabbahaha

"That is a complete fluke, an accident."

Completely wrong.

"What the world wanted was Unix running on inexpensive commodity PC hardware. That's it."

Right, the average user does not give a shit about the license. But wrong, because how they got it was from people who do care. BSD already existed and they could already be contributing to it, but they chose not to. And they made that choice specifically based on the license, which we know because so many major contributors told us so. You are ignoring what they said because it suits your prejudice.

People don't want the news. News consumption continues to drop. People always thought of news as a bit of a chore. Something you were supposed to keep up with but not anything you enjoyed. It got turned into 24/7 entertainment crap when Fox News took over but that's not news that's propaganda. And even that isn't very popular.

People in America are in the habit of blaming individuals for either systemic problems or what our Epstein class is doing. It's a bad habit and I wish we would stop but well, there's all that propaganda encouraging us to do it...

Yeah, there's two main problems:

1) People entering the wrong fields. For example, medicine really needs workers, at all levels, but not enough people are going into it.

2) Certain manual labour fields, like field work and home construction, because... well, I think we all know why there's a shortage of workers in those fields.