randominternetperson

In 2014, Apple bought Beats, spending around $3 billion to do so. Later it was disclosed that Beats owner Dr Dre having leaked the news early meant Apple then screwed him out of $200 million, bringing the price fractionally below those billions.

mike1 said:

rhbellmor said:

I'm the S5 coupe owner you helped with my ordered S5 showed up with multiple dents in my Audi.  We plan to replace my wife's A4 with the new SQ9 which I have been following for at least the last couple of years.  One of our requirements is our new car had to have the new Apple CarPlay Ultra, I've read this morning that Audi has backed out of their original commitment to the enhanced CarPlay.  If that decision is true Audi will not be included in our search after owning (5) Audis we're moving on  Not a big fan of Kia but Kia has now been added to our list.  I thought you should know our feelings.  Thank you Russell.  PS, I still love my red S5 coupe which might be my last race car!  Sent to an Audi VP I know.

I can understand that it is a desired feature and might be a tipping point in a final decision, but going from an Audi to Kia for that reason alone, is like choosing your heart surgeon based only on his or her hair color.

robin huber said:

sflagel said:

it is ludicrous for a car manufacturer to give Apple access to all its car systems, which will invariably lead to Apple becoming the gatekeeper to the entire tech stack of a car. This in addition to the branding impact. CarPlay is not the end of evolution, for example, the music app is well on CarPlay. Audi music controls are much better. 

Who said all? We’re talking about user-facing information systems. Car manufacturers have farmed out components and subsystems from day one. Brakes, batteries, transmissions, gauges, radios, generators, on and on. More to the point, putting Bose, Harmon-Kardon and many other name brand audio systems is a selling point. Why should this be any different?

Branded audio is nowhere near as involved or complicated as a complete handover of the car's entire user interface. Of course, the car companies use subcontractors for many subsystems, but they still retain control over the way they operate, look and feel in their own vehicles. For example, Harman (parent company of Harman Kardon audio) provides the basic electronics infrastructure for many car brands, but the car companies control the integration and UI aspects. 

mfryd said:

foregoneconclusion said:

mfryd said: I am merely pointing out that these are a complicated issues.

"Fair use" isn't really complicated. I'll provide an example that applies to myself. I like to design my own graphics for movies and TV shows that I have ripped from discs and stream from a home media server. To create the graphics, I typically go to the internet and look at a variety of posters and packaging that exist for that particular movie/show and choose the images and typographic treatments I like best and then digitally edit those elements into a new composition. This approach is "fair use" ONLY because the copyrighted material that I'm using without permission will not appear anywhere other than on my home Apple TV. In other words, it's purely for personal use. It has no commercial or professional application.

However, if I put those same graphic treatments into a professional portfolio to try and get a job designing those kinds of graphics, it wouldn't be "fair use" anymore. I would be violating copyright because I had never received permission to use any of the material professionally. 

So you can see how the ruling by this particular judge is ignoring a very obvious copyright issue in regards to permissions. The only way an AI program that was trained on copyrighted material without the appropriate permissions could be considered "fair use" would be if the AI program was never made available to the public. Literally like if Sam Altman was the only person that could use ChatGPT. Because once it's publicly available as a product of a professional organization, it can't possibly be considered personal use anymore...just like the example of putting my home ATV graphics that used copyrighted material without permission into a professional portfolio. 

"Fair use" includes all sorts of things.   My understanding is that I can incorporate verbatim scenes from a copyrighted movie into a new production in which I provide a review of the movie.  I believe this is the case even if my production is a commercial endeavor, and I am making a boatload of money from it. 

How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?

Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See, Fair Use Index, and Circular 21, Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians.

If you include whole "verbatim scenes" in a review, there's an excellent chance that you'd be violating "fair use." If one could argue that you are profiting by showing of the unaltered scenes from the movie, rather than thru your commentary, you're on legal thin ice. But IANAL.

(Update/clarification: the issue is not whether the potential offender "profits," it is whether those actions result in "actual or potential market substitution." That is, if someone would possibly view your movie instead of my movie because you included whole scenes of my movie in your "review" movie, that would be a point in favor of it not being fair use.)