>No humans can memorize entire novels, as this research proved these models do.
Humans can however, remember entire songs, and songs are definitely long enough to be considered copyright protected. There is still a difference in scale, but that's not really relevant when it comes to copyright law. You can't be like "well humans are committing copyright infringement but since it's limited to a few hundred words we'll give it a pass".
It's not that you can remember a song and therefore copyright infringement when you sing.
For 99.999% of people that are singing a song, it's not a replacement for the original in any way shape or form, hard stop. Let's not pretend it could even get anywhere close.
For the last 0.001%, we would call it a cover and typically the individually doing a cover takes some liberties of their own, still making it not a replacement in any way. Artists are typically cool with covers.
>For 99.999% of people that are singing a song, it's not a replacement for the original in any way shape or form, hard stop. Let's not pretend it could even get anywhere close.
You realize that lyrics are often written by someone other than the actual singer, and whoever wrote the lyrics is entitled to compensation too? The "amateur singing isn't a replacement for the studio album" excuse doesn't work in this context. Also courts have ruled that lyrics themselves are protected by copyright.
Clearly the team, if it is a team, that is entitled to the copyright is entitled to the copyright of the song, that's a silly statement to make. Copyright belongs to some entity, obviously.
You were specifically calling out individuals singing a song, not publishing lyrics online. These are not the same thing. Again your distribution/consumption model matters here.
On artists being "cool" with it - if the copyright holder doesn't pursue you then does it matter? The only valid argument I would see here is if the copyright holder doesn't know about the infringement and therefore cannot seek remedies, but we can fish for illegal scenarios all day if we would like: that's not useful though.
>Clearly the team, if it is a team, that is entitled to the copyright is entitled to the copyright of the song, that's a silly statement to make. Copyright belongs to some entity, obviously.
>You were specifically calling out individuals singing a song, not publishing lyrics online. These are not the same thing. Again your distribution/consumption model matters here.
I'm not sure why you're so confidently dismissive here. I wasn't trying to claim that nobody owned the lyrics. I brought that point up because even in the case of an amateur singing a song, even if you accept the "for 99.999% of people that are singing a song, it's not a replacement for the original in any way shape or form" excuse, you're still infringing on the copyright of the lyrics, because it's a derivative work. Moreover it's unclear whether that excuse even works. If you make a low cost version of star wars, copying the screenplay exactly, that still seems like copyright infringement, even if "it's not a replacement for the original in any way shape or form".
>On artists being "cool" with it - if the copyright holder doesn't pursue you then does it matter?
Virtually nobody got sued for torrenting with a VPN on. Does that mean it's fair to round that off as being legal, because "if the copyright holder doesn't pursue you then does it matter"?
> Moreover it's unclear whether that excuse even works. If you make a low cost version of star wars, copying the screenplay exactly, that still seems like copyright infringement, even if "it's not a replacement for the original in any way shape or form".
Are you being intentionally obtuse here? Intention matters here.
> Virtually nobody got sued for torrenting with a VPN on.
Let's not use obviously illegal actions which are done covertly to act as an example that is in any way similar to singing a song in the "open."
>There's no special protection for works that a human has memorized.
Who's liable for the copyright infringement if you can coax it out of a system? If you can bypass paywalls by using google's cache feature (or since they got rid of it, but using carefully crafted queries to extract the entire text via snippets), is google on the hook or the person doing it?
Both. If I sell obviously pirated CDs on the street corner, it's not only illegal for me to copy them and sell them, it's also illegal for my customers to buy them.
Is it? There's plenty of people prosecuted for running illegal streaming sites and torrenting (which involves uploading), but I don't know of any efforts to crack down on non-distributors.
1. How does this interact with the ruling that both google books (ie. large scale scanning of books without author's consent) and google snippets (the same, but for websites) have been ruled legal by the courts?
2. Google might not be the most sympathetic defendant, but what about libraries? They offer books to be borrowed, and some offer photocopiers. If you put the two together, you get a copyright infringement operation, all enabled by the library. Should libraries be on the hook too?
For #2 yes...you would be engaging in copyright infringement. The library, being on the hook, would probably ask you to stop if they noticed you copying full books. If not the first time, certainly on the second
>If you can bypass paywalls by using google's cache feature
that is quite different. Google serves (used to serve) to its users whatever the website presents to its crawler, it does not try to avoid paywalls or interact with the website in any capacity other than requesting information
Whitelist sites instead of blacklisting? I'm also not sure how kids are getting admin rights to install a VPN in the first place. For the overwhelming majority of cases a kiosk like experience should suffice, which should virtually eliminate any jailbreaks.
If you're using a whitelist approach, you may as well just turn off the internet. Maintaining a whitelist is almost hopeless. Turning off the internet isn't a bad idea, but it is a big change. Maybe some form of archiving interesting pages for kids to look at, but even that feels like too much work.
Plus, if you're using the google docs ecosystem, I suspect it's hard to avoid kids chatting in shared text files, and eventually figuring out how to get spreadsheets to fetch webpages for you.
Yeah, this never made sense to me and I’ve suggested it to the district, especially for lower grades. They will never block all of the websites they need to unless they block all of the websites. Allow teachers to unblock specific sites for the students they’re responsible for.
>You wouldn’t give them access to your personal email or bank account.
I thought it was vaguely common for secretaries (or staffers) to run the email/social media accounts of politicians and executives? Also you might not give access your secretary access to your bank account, but you'd give it to your financial adviser or accountant.
> I thought it was vaguely common for secretaries (or staffers) to run the email/social media accounts of politicians and executives?
Yes, that's correct. One of the many functions of an executive assistant for a senior executive is to manage the email inbox and the calendar. But even there, there are rules, even if they aren't technically enforced by Google Workspace or MS Exchange. Each principal has a slightly different set of rules with their EAs, and you could imagine similar differentiation with how people customize their own AI agents to get the best balance of keeping your inbox clean vs. not causing your email to turn into a weapon against you.
When a human assistant or advisor is on the receiving end of this delegation, there's typically plenty of risk for them if they do something untoward. I am talking financial, reputational, legal, career risks.
When an AI agent screws up on some highly consequential manner, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
And like with Claws, every now and then a politician's secretary will post something inappropriate or embarrassing, and then the politician will end up taking the heat for it. Recently the president was caught up in some less-than-appropriate posts about a former president and blamed it on a staffer.
>Would you say the same about a block list that blocks anything else? I don't care how obvious an ad is, I don't want to see it. Same with social widgets or cookie consent banners, or newsletter sign-ups.
He's not complaining that widgets for his favorite social network site is getting blocked, he's complaining that anything vaguely related to social networks are getting banned. Some of the sites on that list are stuff like chatgpt.com, which might be AI related, but clearly doesn't fit the criteria of "AI generated content, for the purposes of cleaning image search engines".
I can’t help but feel like you’re drawing this freedom along arbitrary limits. If something is subject to whether it’s popular shouldn’t there be forces who influence that?
>I can’t help but feel like you’re drawing this freedom along arbitrary limits
I'm not. Saying that freedom of speech is for unpopular opinions doesn't imply it only protects unpopular opinions, any more than saying that wheelchair ramps are for wheelchairs doesn't imply only wheelchair people can use it.
If we’re discussing wheelchair ramps we are going to default to matters related to people in wheelchairs first because they are who the ramps are for.
Whether a person is in a wheelchair and the access that wheelchair ramps are meant to provide them is seldom arbitrary. Is it not? For example, there are comprehensive laws in the US that regulate them.
You said freedom of speech is exactly what unpopular opinions are for. What do you mean? If popularity isn’t subject to the arbitrary whims of people then how is it determined?
Can popularity be regulated like wheelchair accessibility? If so then how is it anything but inevitable that someone’s freedom of speech will be restricted depending on the nature of the law.
>Whether a person is in a wheelchair and the access that wheelchair ramps are meant to provide them is seldom arbitrary. Is it not? For example, there are comprehensive laws in the US that regulate them.
There's also comprehensive case law on what is first amendment protected speech, but how "comprehensive" the relevant regulations are is irrelevant to my point. Despite regulations clearly intending wheelchair ramps to be used by people in wheelchairs, anyone can use them. We don't ask "how is a wheelchair user determined" or whatever.
> We don't ask "how is a wheelchair user determined" or whatever.
Because it’s obvious who’s in a wheelchair and who isn’t.
Why does it appear difficult for you to explain un/popularity with regard to free speech though?
If you want to make the point that popularity could be determined by case law then that sounds fair, I mean it’s an idea I would look into myself at least. But you’ve already deemed that to be irrelevant to your own point. It’s like you shot yourself in the foot. I appreciate the assistance though.
Hmm not quite following: 500MW was created at connected to grid as required although delegated to 3rd party. And the DC uses that power. So what's the problem?
Just store the list on your phone? It's better ux too. Unlike with pen and paper, you can check off items with a tap and rearrange them arbitrarily.
reply