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’.

I don’t think latency is relevant in an application like lemmy. If you can’t get posts from the server it’s not latency but the server being overloaded.

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).

While China holds a legally indefensible position that the straight is it’s territorial waters, so is Taiwan’s ADIZ or any claim that Chinese (or Taiwanese if they wished) planes cannot cross the midway point.

The straight is 97 nmi wide, territorial waters cannot extend beyond 12, so there’s plenty of international waters (and thus airspace) for anybody to fly on.

Also, here’s a solution: Just don’t use Chrome or any Chromium-based browsers.

Provided your bank has not stopped supporting your “non-secure” browser. The previous browser vendor that had a functional monopoly did abuse user-agent to harass the competition. Using non IE required changing your user-agent to IE/Windows for a lot of sites.

Or as they say:

Websites will ultimately decide if they trust the verdict returned from the attester.

It is expected that the attesters will typically come from the operating system (platform)

There is… …the risk of websites using this functionality to exclude specific attesters or non-attestable browsers

It’s not corporate based social with a mostly US based audience.

It was literally started because of political censorship of leftists on reddit.

It’s also going to be used to enforce locking down of Android (custom roms, root). You don’t have to read very far to find “secure” Android device or them being inspired by Play Integrity.

Nobody said they would confiscate millions of com or net domain names or random non-Americans. We are talking about the lemmy developers specifically.

But there is no reason to get a US registered domain as a non US citizen who is also not hosted in the USA.

.com and .net are under US jurisdiction they are not stateless. I could also see why the original lemmy developers would not want to use such a domain.

There is adb-sync which I tried and it works great. There are also related tools linked there but I haven’t used them.

They were in Italy at the time so I suppose they could have caused issues if they went full full fascist.

It does not seem that you actually get nagged notifications while the work profile is paused.

As I understand it the apps get them but will display them when you resume your work profile.

A free ,as in non DRM, digital copy is the best from a customers perspective. It’s after all what you get after ripping your discs.

Physical media can also have DRM, just because we were able to break DVD, BR etc does not mean we are always going to be able to do so. Nor is DRM on physical media inherently weaker than on digital files, quite the opposite. If they got it right you could be unable to resell the disc afterwards, or more precisely the guy you sold it too could not use it.

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 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.