randominternetperson

MplsP said:

New Vietnam trade deal means Apple American consumers will pay at least five times more in tariffs.

Fixed the title.

foregoneconclusion said:

mfryd said:

foregoneconclusion said:

mfryd said: I am not a lawyer, however this is my understanding of what someone can do without violating copyright law.

Yes, a person can do that without violating copyright. But AI doesn't work like the human mind. AI requires the complete works of Stephen King to be copied into a database. If it's done without permission, then it's a violation of copyright. 

One can certainly make a reasonable case that an internal copy is a violation.  One can also make a case that an internal copy is fair use.  

AI may not store text in a simple format.  A computer can parse the text, break it down into verbs, nouns, concepts, etc.  The computer might be storing a sophisticated parse tree and analysis of the original text, not the original text itself.  Perhaps this conversion is transformative enough that it isn't a violation?   Does it make a difference if the computer and undo the transformation and can recover the original text?

The courts are currently working on clarifying how to apply the existing copyright law to these new, and unforeseen usages.

Again, "fair use" for a professional product is always going to be limited to excerpts. And I think you're aware that if the AI program only used public domain writings then the output is only going to be similar to public domain writings. It isn't suddenly going to start writing like Stephen King. 

When each LLM was put into a public-facing version of Claude [Anthropics AI service], it was complemented by other software that filtered user inputs to the LLM and filtered outputs from the LLM back to the user (id. ¶¶ 75–77). As a result, Authors do not allege that any infringing copy of their works was or would ever be provided to users by the Claude service. Yes, Claude could help less capable writers create works as well-written as Authors’ and competing in the same categories. But Claude created no exact copy, nor any substantial knock-off. Nothing traceable to Authors’ works. Such allegations are simply not part of plaintiffs’ amended complaint, nor in our record.

Authors further argue that the training was intended to memorize their works’ creative elements — not just their works’ non-protectable ones (Opp. 17). But this is the same argument. Again, Anthropic’s LLMs have not reproduced to the public a given work’s creative elements, nor even one author’s identifiable expressive style (assuming arguendo that these are even copyrightable). Yes, Claude has outputted grammar, composition, and style that the underlying LLM distilled from thousands of works. But if someone were to read all the modern-day classics because of their exceptional expression, memorize them, and then emulate a blend of their best writing, would that violate the Copyright Act? Of course not.

designguybrown said:

Meh. Seems emotional and sentimental. If you are placing your content on the web, you are practically posting it on the street for general view with absurd hopes of pennies trickling in on some desperate fancy rather than through proper business channels with an effective strategy of legally protecting and promoting yourself - childish. Most people who do such art that they may avoid other types of structured paid work - what do they expect when they treat their skill set as a hobby - likely not wanting to work for others on a structured gig - if that's even around much? What's even the issue here - not getting a piece of the trifling leavings of scrapers and edu-content pedlars? pedantic. Art needs to stop being a vague creation-vocation of the rando people and grow up. Successful society is based on complex businesses and legal structures requiring serious people acting seriously. Creativity is a real skill and needs focused training and  a hierarchy of knowledgeable people to propagate it through society. Sorry, but I have little symp for the dilettantes and dabblers hoping to otherwise avoid the soulless cubicle, construction site, and assembly line.

9secondkox2 said:

Wesley_Hilliard said:

9secondkox2 said:

AppleZulu said:

9secondkox2 said:

pianoman1962 said:

The guy is lying through his teeth... again. Well, no surprise there. He's not fit to run a boy scouts group, let alone a country.

Lying about what? Have you heard him speak about this at all? 

It's fascinating, if a bit sad, to watch you pivot right here in this thread from acknowledging that this is junk and 'not a good look' to trying really hard to pretend like Donald Trump has nothing to do with it. 

Of course he has everything to do with it. If he didn't, shouldn't we expect him to have already stepped up to a podium and declared that in order to protect the integrity of the Office of the President, that he must publicly insist that his sons cease and desist in this crass effort to profit from his presidency? Shouldn't he be saying, as President, he holds the public trust as sacrosanct, and he won't tolerate this or any future efforts to sully the presidency with tacky profiteering schemes? Of course he hasn't said any of that, because this was presented to him and endorsed by him before they went public with it. If he wasn't, he would have been blind-sided and publicly angry about it. 

Trump's silence on the matter is part of the problem, not the plausible deniability that you're trying to sell. 

I asked a simple objective question. The things some people try to attach to the issue simply have not presented themselves in reality. 

Best to stick with facts over conjecture. If it comes out thst this was “45/57” pulling the strings, so be it. But from all available info so far, there appears to be distance there. That’s simple fact. 

Yes, it looks like a lame offering. From a lame phone to a service of unknown quality to poor graphic design/web design, and cringeworthy “marketing,” to the whole thing just being an MVNO with a couple third party services attached to your phone bill, it’s just not compelling. And it is a bit cringeworthy. 

Is it wrong for the Trump family organization to offer this? Is it wrong to have the marketing loosely but obviously connected to the fact that their dad Donald J Trump is the 45th and 47th president? (The 47 Plan / $47.45, etc) Is it wrong to include “Mske America Great Again” on the phone wallpaper? Doubtful. Is it cringe and unappealing? Sure. I dont disagree. 

Why would the president need to be vocal about something he doesn’t have anything to do with? He might think it’s cool his kids are doing their own thing here. And? It’s not like Trump has the best aesthetic taste in the world. Sprinkling gold on everything isn’t aesthetically appealing, nor is his choice of architecture, hairstyle, spray tan, etc. but I’m sure he’s happy his kids have taken some initiative and no doubt is ok with it. Doesn’t mean he’s behind it or is wrong somehow for not getting vocal or involved against it in some other way. 

I get that this forum is predominantly hostile toward the president to say the least. And folks such as myself are in the minority here, even having moderators suggest putting such views on “ignore.” And it’s not like the president is perfect. There are plenty of things to disagree on. But nitpicking every little thing snd even nitpicking stuff that just isn’t there is too much. It becomes like the boy who cried wolf. After a while, it just becomes noise. 

But this issue is simply the man’s family doing their own thing snd banking on their dads popularity. Trump himself has not been proven to be involved, nor is there any evidence of such that I’ve seen. And I’ve been looking. If that changes, so be it. But let’s stick with the facts for now. 

You know what, you're right. There's no evidence that the phone covered in fake gold coloring with the initial of the President, running a service named after the President, focused on promoting an initiative of building in the US created by the President being made by the company the President still controls according to financial filings, has anything to do with the President.

We should all learn to reason this way. we'd all be much happier. He also isn't earning any money from crypto or bible sales and is personal friends with the Easter Bunny.

All that and still no evidence. If it comes out that tje president is pulling the strings on this venture, then you will have some fodder. But it doesn’t appear to be the case at the moment. An initial? *gasp!* the same initial that the guys kids have? Egad. 

Each of the other ventures have their own nuance. And they can each be discussed as well. However, The subject of this thread is the new Trump Mobile service. And at least up to now, there is no evidence DJT is running this. Or even involved at all. 

TRUMPSM and all associated designs are trademarks of DTTM Operations LLC. TrumpSM Mobile, its products and services are not designed, developed, manufactured, distributed or sold by The TrumpSM Organization or any of their respective affiliates or principals. T1SM Mobile LLC uses the TRUMPSM name and trademark pursuant to the terms of a limited license agreement which may be terminated or revoked according to its terms.