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’.

If 43 dead are the proper response for a police officer how many more should be killed for a normal civilian?

Ads. To be precise this on it’s own provides a way for servers to be certain of the environment the pages run (browser, plugins, os). Protecting ads or other functions come from servers refusing unattested configurations or configurations they don’t like (i.e. running adblock, running firefox, running linux).

It’s in his apartment. Unmanaged switches and/or WiFi.

Look, if France can cockblock many other countries because they’ll lose a little bit of money in the process while lying about it saying it’s because of “environmental issues” when really it’s just protectionism on their part, hurting relations between Europe and South America and preventing other countries in Europe from benefiting from that… that is a centralised form of power. The decision becomes theirs because it has to be unanimous. It’s also anti-democratic

Sounds convincing if you ignore veto not being a France power. It can be literally be used by any country in the EU. Unanimity is the opposite of centralization. Plain majority democracy is more centralized than unanimity.

I’m from the Schengen area… and I’ll still be against joining the EU, because EU regulations shows its more than just an economic union. Laws have to be changed and liberalism has to be turned up to 11, borders have to be opened completely and laws have to be changed, costing lots and lots of money and time, as well as taking away sovereignty by taking away autonomy.

Did you have to do much research? The treaties say that members states surrender competencies to the EU. The 00s treaties say it out loud that the EU is not just an economic organization. You didn’t discover any secret nor are you blowing anyone’s mind with your revelations.

I also do not like how liberal the EU is but you probably think liberal means left wing.

“But you can leave”… worked really well for the Brits, didn’t it? Again: no thanks.

I didn’t say that to convince you to join. I said that because that’s not possible in federal states such as the US or Russia.

I wish the EU would stop sharing Schengen with non members as well as stop having EEA members. These kind of agreements require alignment with EU law without EU representation thus eventually leading to bad relations.

The EU is not a federal state like the US or China or Russia. It’s a federation of sovereign states. Truly sovereign and de independent states not de jure like US states or Wales etc.

They can even leave if they want.

I also don’t understand how you can be against centralization of power and yet be against the veto, the best tool against centralization.

You don’t have to join. Where are you from anyways?

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.

There should at least be a path to a more democratic vote, where each country gets a certain amount of votes to equalise each other out.

Like the European parliament? The reason for the veto is because the EU is not a country nor are it’s people a single nation.

Smaller nations would not joined if it meant everything would get decided by a few large countries.

So that France can stop our trade deals? No thanks. We’d rather pay for priveliges than do that.

France usually doesn’t need the veto. They are big population wise and have a lot of influence being rich.

So we won’t join, and the UK won’t come back.

I don’t know who are you speaking for but it’s ok, if you don’t like the terms you don’t have to join. Just like it’s not fair to change the terms on those that have already joined.

Same for the UK. They caused enough drama all these years.

Every member has a veto right and it is more important for small members than big countries like France and Germany.

Non EU Schengen states should not have a say in the EU signing treaties. If they want to, they should join the EU and thus be bound by any treaties the EU signs.

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.

The only bluetooth issue I had was with an xbox controller that I used both in both windows and linux (same machine). I had to completely remove it and pair it on both OSes if I used it on the other one.

Bluetooth headphones actually work out of the box in Ubuntu but whatever.

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.

Well, there are some arguments pro buying cheaper phones.

1. You have the option to upgrade, you are not obliged. Even if you finance the more expensive phone you are still committed for more. You have more options.

2. Batteries do naturally degrade over time. No matter how expensive or good your phone is.

3. Accidents happen some will not be covered by warranty but I also do not see more expensive phones having more than 2 years warranty which is the minimum.

4. If you do chose to upgrade you have more phones, that means a backup or a free phone for a member of your family.

I am sorry, I cannot see your reply, it shows empty.

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.