pessimizer

Most people can. But you can be sued in Canada just like anywhere else; it isn't legal. According to a search, the damages per offense may be capped at $5K CAD, though, which is great compared to the US.

I agree, and also

> A court has already called the training fair use

isn't dispositive. Another court, a less stupid or corrupt one, could decide differently. SCOTUS could decide differently.

But using illegally obtained material as the foundation of your business and destroying it for fear of litigation, both of those things are clearly criminal.

This is organized crime, because the organization knew (and depended on the fact) that he was doing this, and it is also the intentional destruction of evidence.

The fact that he was seeding a torrent is the thing that least matters here. They weren't making billions from seeding a torrent, they were spending bandwidth to do it. The fact that they downloaded a bunch of copyrighted works illegally in order to create their business is.

Copyright violation is civil, but conspiracy is criminal, and destruction of evidence is criminal. These AI companies are criminal. Everything associated with these enterprises should be seized and either run by the state, or run on behalf of the civilly injured parties.

edit: keep downvoting it, but I will keep posting it. This behavior is just getting by through nerve, bribery, and the fact that the US economy depends on it being successful. It is unambiguously criminal, and anybody aware of it who participated (everybody) is implicated. It is so bizarre how you people think you're better than people smuggling counterfeit designer bags or selling bootleg DVDs. You're worse.

> Now what about those millions of lines of code? Wasn’t the agent swarm supposed to take care of it?

What's the joke? They're literally saying, every day, that this is true to a civilization endangering extent. They're making demands based on this, and politicians are taking up those demands.

And now they're paying bullshit $5K bug bounties for account-stealing exploits on their own platform. They should have paid more just the make the bug seem more grandiose; I don't know who let them get away with this - this is what happens when CEOs run their own PR I guess. It's basically an public announcement that they're total fakes.

The contents of the article make it clear that "touch wood" is basically synonymous with "knock on wood," making the knocking less important than the touching.

But is is important to mention that a ctrl-f on that page for "unpainted" is proof that you didn't spend much time looking.

> The New York Times’ lawsuit, meanwhile, asks everyone to ignore a half century of legal history and progress, and toss aside the longstanding principle of fair use in their own narrow pursuit of an undeserved payday.

There's absolutely no "fair use" precedent that says that you can program a computer with copyrighted material. They're just asking for an exception essentially based on their compression being lossy, which of course the law takes the absolute opposite opinion on e.g. distributing a 1080p of my bluray disc has been determined to definitely not be fair use.

Their essential case is that they use the word "training," and people training themselves from books is fair use, so since they use the word "training" then what they're doing is fair use. It's stupid, and judges going for it are either stupid or corrupt. I'm not actually copying your book, I'm training my printing press.

I know a woman who is like that about bare feet, but she doesn't expect the world to indulge her.

If it's your configuration, it's not a problem with your OS, it's a problem with your configuration. Your problem is specifically that your OS has chosen not to support certain characters in filenames, and you want to write files containing those characters.

No. Free would mean that any modifications that you distribute would also be under the same license, and you would have to make them available in a usable form. Open means you can do whatever you want with it, as long as you include a copy of the license, the copyright, and possibly the author's name(s).

> Businesses should be able to release things to the public yet still be able to control who makes money off of it.

Nobody's stopping them. People are complaining about the lying. They can do whatever they want with their IP.

"Open Source" as a phrase does not. I have no idea what you mean by "Open Source as a concept," especially 1) because you're capitalizing it, and 2) because you're saying that the concept doesn't mean anything in particular.

It's annoying that people pretend like Open Source was a common phrase before it was invented to subvert Free Software by OSI, and it's shameful that people would tell this lie for the sole purpose of trading on the goodwill that Open Source software has created. Even in the world where people were always talking about "open source" before the OSI, that talk is certainly not the reason that people who are using the term to describe non-OSI approved licenses are using it today. They're intentionally trying to defraud people, and have the nerve to be snotty about it.

> Back then the establishment used the CIA/FBI to prevent a multi-coalition, working class movement across ethnicity, unions, and religions that would have made the US a better democracy.

Back then the establishment used the CIA/FBI to attack black civil rights movements. They also used it to attack things that were associated with the Soviet Union, including associating black civil rights with communism and socialism, like you're doing here.

Maybe this was not about everybody and not about you?

Major competitors shouldn't be able to acquire each other in any society that cares about healthy markets.

So what you're saying is that they're not actually trying to maximize profit, they're just trying to maximize profit to prove that they can maximize profit for investors?

> I don’t feel like reality is so interesting that CC devs are sitting in a room theorizing how to extract the most profit from their users.

Do you really think this is so interesting, or something that people who work jobs have a responsibility to do?

What does this have to do with whether the agent should ask for confirmation?