Pseu

It probably wouldn’t hold up in court, but it can be used as a bludgeon to dissuade people from filing in the first place. Roku is totally allowed to lie and say “You can’t sue, you agreed to mandatory arbitration. // You can’t join the class action, you agreed not to. If you do either of these things, we’ll sue you.”

This could easily dissuade quite a few people from litigating, limiting how much the company needs to pay out.

A car driven by a human is unlikely to need firefighters to lift the vehicle up to get at the woman pinned by its tire. Even if they’re good at general driving they have an unfortunate habit of making emergencies worse.

Copyright is not ownership. You can own something, but not hold the copyright to it.

Personality rights are also not copyright and as the ruling was not about personality rights, it did not affect these rights (where they exist in the US). Disregarding both AI and the recent ruling, if someone takes a photograph of you, you do not hold the copyright to it, the photographer does. If the photographer then does something with that image that harms your reputation you may be able to sue.

And no, it is unlikely that there is a distinction between one’s likeness and “AI generated likeness,” it usually doesn’t matter if you use a photograph or a drawing of an individual, it is the identity that is protected regardless of what tool was used.

Quantum computers don’t break encryption by guessing passwords, it breaks encryption by being able to quickly factor extremely large numbers. What password is used doesn’t matter, it’s a more direct attack on the algorithm itself.

And Discord meshes very well with other social media. Reddit, Youtube and Lemmy communities all benefit from having Discords as well.

Remember, Creative Commons licenses often require attribution if you use the work in a derivative product, and sometimes require ShareAlike. Without these things, there would be basically no protection from a large firm copying a work and calling it their own.

Rolling pack copyright protection in these areas will enable large companies with traditional copyright systems to wholesale take over open source projects, to the detriment of everyone. Closed source software isn’t going to be available to AI scrapers, so this only really affects open source projects and open data, exactly the sort of people who should have more protection.

Researchers pay for publication, and then the publisher doesn’t pay for peer review, then charges the reader to read research that they basically just slapped on a website.

It’s the publisher middlemen that need to be ousted from academia, the researchers don’t get a dime.

Solaar seems to work fine. Honestly Linux’s third party software often supports hardware better than the Windows first party software.

If major companies want to be on the fediverse, they’re welcome to make their own kbin/lemmy/mastodon accounts.

This kind of ruling would make sense for a $20 bicycle, but I’d expect the bar for mutual agreement to be higher for a shipment of $60,000 worth of flax.

If I were making a web crawler, I would make it so that if a crawler finds a domain that appears to have changed dramatically or gone offline it will re-crawl the domain and flag already-crawled pages as potentially obsolete.

Businesses and governments have security cameras. Your bank and credit processor will log every transaction you make, Your phone monitors your location, your cell company monitors it too. You have a good half-dozen firms monitoring you basically 24/7 for a variety of reasons. And it’s obviously not any better once you’re on the internet.

Once the raw emails have been fed into their ad targeting system, the content of those emails loses the vast majority of its value. Storage is cheap, but not free and inactive accounts have particularly low value. So of course they’ll delete the data.