Yes, the people making the crime shows make real money.

It’s also not a deepfake but quite fake looking AI generated stuff. And childlike synthesized voiceovers.

I frankly find making a whole tv production with actors,directors etc far more disturbing.

True crime shows have existed with real (paid) actors in mainstream media for decades. Certainly made more money compared to ‘content creators’.

Are you allowed to unilaterally stop providing the service you 've been paid too?

GDPR is not the only law In EU nor does it automatically supercede any and all other obligations.

Doubtful. There is no basis for Ubisoft to claim the account is no longer needed just because you haven’t played a game in some arbitrary period of time. Especially if they allow explicit account deletion by the user.

Not only that is not always the case, but with the locked down nature of consoles it would be way more difficult for a console owner to override any online DRM even if he had the whole software on disk.

While China holds a legally indefensible position that the straight is it’s territorial waters, so is Taiwan’s ADIZ or any claim that Chinese (or Taiwanese if they wished) planes cannot cross the midway point.

The straight is 97 nmi wide, territorial waters cannot extend beyond 12, so there’s plenty of international waters (and thus airspace) for anybody to fly on.

Also, here’s a solution: Just don’t use Chrome or any Chromium-based browsers.

Provided your bank has not stopped supporting your “non-secure” browser. The previous browser vendor that had a functional monopoly did abuse user-agent to harass the competition. Using non IE required changing your user-agent to IE/Windows for a lot of sites.

Or as they say:

Websites will ultimately decide if they trust the verdict returned from the attester.

It is expected that the attesters will typically come from the operating system (platform)

There is… …the risk of websites using this functionality to exclude specific attesters or non-attestable browsers

There is adb-sync which I tried and it works great. There are also related tools linked there but I haven’t used them.

They were in Italy at the time so I suppose they could have caused issues if they went full full fascist.

It does not seem that you actually get nagged notifications while the work profile is paused.

As I understand it the apps get them but will display them when you resume your work profile.

Well our experiences differ then. I never had any issues on vanilla Ubuntu systems. After all if there was I 'd have to be on the phone to fix it while also reminding the fam that any non specified click us a left click.

To be fair I rarely had issues with Windows myself, at least post xp. But windows do fail, especially on updates and in quite bizarre ways. I ve had to solve quite a few over the years.

Nope. Install a distro like Ubuntu and it will not break with auto updates. Nvidia drivers included.

Much less maintenance than when they used windows.

You also overestimate the non tech enthusiast ability to use or fix issues with windows. They usually download the first program that promises to fix their issue, or increase their RAM.

It’s actually ideal for people who are actually not tech enthusiasts at all and do not need specific software for their job (Photoshop, audio stuff, actually NOT Ms office)

Everybody I 've seen making this argument is actually a tech enthusiast themselves and just as out of touch with the average user as a Linux “guru” and massively overestimates the non tech enthusiast user.

They are far more likely to fuck up their Windows PC (even with UAC because they don’t understand what it is) than successfullyinstall a new program on their own.

I 've borged my Nvidia drivers a few times, never via the distro auto updating. Custom kernels, trying to get newer cuda versions or something. Still better to fix than AMD drivers on windows and the whole DDU dance.

A free ,as in non DRM, digital copy is the best from a customers perspective. It’s after all what you get after ripping your discs.

Physical media can also have DRM, just because we were able to break DVD, BR etc does not mean we are always going to be able to do so. Nor is DRM on physical media inherently weaker than on digital files, quite the opposite. If they got it right you could be unable to resell the disc afterwards, or more precisely the guy you sold it too could not use it.

You’re conflating the concept of “recording” with the concept of “copying”. They weren’t making a copy. They were making a recording. As your citation demonstrates, these two concepts are not the same thing.

Fuck off mate, you are full of shit. The concept of recording is so different to copying according to my citation that the recording are made via ‘copying devices’. It’s also immaterial. RECORDINGS could infringe and thus the court therefore examines if the fair use exception applies.

I will no more argue with you, since you are dishonest.

I agree that after a download is complete, a copy has come into existence, and it is located on the downloader’s computer. But, the downloader did not have the work prior to downloading. How can he make a copy of something he does not yet possess? What is the “original” from which this copy came to exist? Who had any obligations under copyright law regarding that original?

Unless you can point where the law says you have to make the copy from a copy you posses it is irrelevant.

But we do actually have precedent where there was creation of copies out of thin air. VHS recordings of broadcast, Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios. It was actually settled on time-shifted of free-aired material being fair use. Nobody argued that the VCR owners having no copy before recording did not make a copy.

No, Silverman’s argument is not that the mere possession of the work by ChatGPT violates copyright, because what question has long since been answered: the artist controls the work, not the audience. The artist cannot decide who is and is not allowed to consume the work. Regardless of how someone came to consume the work, they are fully entitled to speak about it.

I will concede that there are situations where you can just consume copyrighted material without copying them (which downloading is). That would be if you I downloaded a movie and invited you to watch it, or a sports bar showing illegal streams.

My whole point is that it does not matter if you have committed copyright infringement, you can always make fair use derivative works such as reviews. I could get DVDs from a friend in the 00s and copy them to a my own disc before watching the copy. That would mean I infringed even in your wrong understanding of copyright. If it was worth it and there was evidence of it the copyright owner would be able to successfully sue me for copying them.

He could correctly argue that me copying the disc, infringing on his copyright, was necessary for me to write a review of his movie, a derivative work. It would not matter.

I could later make another film that is inspired by the movie whose copyright I infringed upon. If the movie is not too similar it would not be itself infringing. If it too similar it could be infringing but so would a movie made by someone who committed no copyright infringement to be able to watch the original.

This is what the discussions was about. AI opponents push the idea that if there was copyright infringement on the training process, any output of AI must be infringing or derivative of the original work. Which is bullshit.

I suppose you are not pro-copyright, same as me, but you are not helping any argument by making claims that are besides the point and wrong.

The uploader is the only person/entity that qualifies as infringing under copyright law. The downloader does not. The downloader is merely receiving the copy; the uploader is the one who producing the copy.

Where does it say that in US copyright law? Downloading is making a copy.

The copying part. Yes, you can conceive a theoritical example where you can consume the content without reproducing it but it’s not what happened in this case.

Or any AI case. There are AI trained outside of the US but they all download the data to train on. They delete it after. What makes it not infringing in AI training is fair use exception for research.

Probably loli hentai which would be illegal in many jurisdictions.

What law makes it illegal to consume an unauthorized copy of a work?

That’s not a flippant question. I am being absolutely serious. Copyright law prohibits the creation and distribution of unauthorized copies; it does not prohibit the reception, possession, or consumption of those copies. You can only declare content consumption to be “illegal” if there is actually a law against it.

Which legal system?