Critique is one of the alleys of fair use, yes.

It is possible that merely training an LLM on material might be fair use. It’s basically the same thing are scraping and then doing statistics. That said, I believe the burden of proof is that a use falls into the fair use exemptions; AI training might not satisfy the criteria the courts have previously established. The U.S. copyright office has published guidelines that indicate training does implicate the right of reproduction, so it if it’s NOT fair use and unlicensed, it is infringement / violation.

But, distributing the output can still be a copyright violation not covered by fair use exemptions, even if training is covered by fair use. The U.S. copyright office has indicated that distributing an output could implicate various rights based on the training data that it is similar to.

In any case, LLMs (or any non-human thing) can’t be given a copyright, and the U.S. copyright office says that prompts are NOT sufficient creative effort to establish a copyright on what a generative AI model outputs in response to a prompt. So, it could be that the only rights holders that get to affect the output are the rights holders of the training data.

If this is the same case that came through yesterday, the Trump DOJ brief is basically just an amicus brief. There’s some sort of jurisdictional / standing issue there that I don’t understand; they aren’t the ones arguing in court.

Maybe a world without copyrights would just be better. But, if Disney gets protections, I want protections on my AGPL code and I want the artists enjoy to get protections as well, even if they haven’t joined a licensing cabal. If that means AI is doomed, fuck it.

It’s mostly a nothing-burger right now:

This new Trump administration brief is not a ruling, as the case is being tried in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and the authors of the brief do not have jurisdiction.

The U.S. copyright office somewhat contradicts the brief:

The training process [also] implicates the right of reproduction.

– https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ Part 3, III, B.

Tho, the same documents do mention that “fair use” defenses can apply, but as always they depend on a lot of factors specific to individual acts of possible infringement.

That’s a very “doomer” view of democracy, but you might be right.

The documents I quote are from publications by the U.S. Copyright Office. But, the Berne convention and the WTO ensure that member states copyrights are aligned.

I doubt “allow for AI generated code” has the bipartisan support you think it does; it certainly doesn’t have the popular support. But, ever if it were legal, it should still be unethical (e.g. Amnesty International’s reports of human rights violations in generative AI), and I’d be attempting to avoid it.

I’ve decided to start moving to NetBSD. The copyright status of genAI code is very questionable, and it’s likely any project that integrates it, with be “extinguished” via legal action in the future.

Oh, violence, even lethal violence might be necessary in defense of self or others. But, we must not deny that we are dealing with persons. I’m not even saying don’t dox the guy, I’m saying that don’t forget that you are doxing a person.

The focus should be on rehabilitating the person and remediating any harm they have caused, not on returning harm with harm. Of course, if they are being violent or legitimately threatening violence, defensive violence SHOULD be taken to contain/control/remove the threat.

Violating his privacy might be a good lesson in how “we should balance privacy and safety” as part of his rehabilitation, but we can do that without dehumanization.

Defensive violence is justified only so long as it is defensive.

For example, torturing prisoners is immoral even if the prisoners in question were (and want to be) executioners for the State. They do not pose a legitimate threat of violence when they are (controlled) prisoners.

This is dehumanization. It is the tool of the enemy. We do not need it. We will not use it.

Batman_breaks_rifle.jpegxl

–

If you dehumanize persons, you aren’t a leftist or revolutionary or the resistance or an activist. You are a fascist.

I think technically that might have been Lindows.

My new game is a roguevania, souls like, gothic horror version of Metroid. /s

You make it sound simple and absolute. But, our rights are severely curtailed even in the U.S. via the DMCA. If your console, or even the game code on disk, requires an okay from the manufacturer as a “copyright protection” and you bypass that in any way, you have just committed a felony and are considered by the State a valid target for violence.

Of course, simply accepting the lack of physical media doesn’t help make the situation any better.

I think in the U.S. the nuclear permitting process is so much longer than the methane generator permitting process, and they don’t want to wait.

Some of them are on Nebula. But, I don’t know who you watch. I have a Nebula lifetime, but I also still have a lot of subscriptions on YT. So, it’s unlikely to be a total replacement.

I know KZ sends out notifications via Discord, so I expect they do get some sort of spike right after upload. And, as long as they are on YT, getting a quick post-upload spike also causes the video to be offered to more non-subscribers.

PeerTube doesn’t provide a revenue stream based on views. KZ and basically anyone that outputs “professional” animations has to have revenue if they are to pay their workers. Other revenue streams (e.g. Merch) can be distractions from the main task of producing video.

Nebula content is only available to subscribers, so the reach is tiny. Creators are free to mirror the content to non-Nebula sites, including YT, so I guess it could be an option.

Dropout is also subscriber only, and they are more jealous about making sure content appears there exclusively, at least for a bit. “One Backflip” and “Pissing Out Cancer” both were Dropout-only for at least a month before the performers could put the specials on other platforms.

Yes, it is possible. But, it’s really hard to get off YT after building an audience there, and YT seems to have a much lower barrier to entry than other platforms, even PeerTube.

Yeah, I think edutainment in particular should really try to at least mirror on Peer Tube. You don’t earn anything for views there, but you also won’t be subject to centralized content moderation.

But, KZ is, I think, captured by Capitalism, and would be unwilling to be hosted on a site that doesn’t pay them.

They’ve admitted to using “AI” content editing tools. But, I’d bet most of those tools are using “AI” either due to exploiting hype, or due to being based on non-generative, “AI” ML classifiers.

That’s what it was called when I started getting it for free with my subscription to Google Play Music. :)

It’s not often, but yeah, sometimes I’ll get a “Jump Ahead >>>” button overlay that skips the sponsor ad-read and/or a clear auto-generated “segment” that is the sponsor ad-read.

Still, I never expected YT Red to remove uploaded content, only to stop inserted advertisements.