When you’re shilling for copyright, at least pick a lane. Are they bad for “pirating” or bad for not supporting “piracy”?

I guess it doesn’t matter as long as the owners collect their rent.

I’m not sure I’m following you either, it appears to me that you don’t see a difference between tax and theft.

That’s an odd thing to write. Why do you believe that?

When Meta takes from everyone it’s a bully that takes from the weak who can’t fight back. Meta does it so that they become the biggest fish in the pond as an end goal.

When a state takes from everyone and rich in particular it’s because we don’t to have this kind of big fish in the pond. We just want to chill.

Ok, I think I get this now. You believe in far-reaching intellectual property, and that property is inviolable, except to limit inequality. So, you reject US-style Fair Use which has a public benefit in mind. Instead, copying only doesn’t require permission if the rights-owner is wealthier than oneself. So, most people could freely copy Taylor Swift songs but perhaps not songs by some street musician. Does that cover it?

I’m trying to follow you. It would be ok if a soviet government did it, but if a private company does it, then it’s stealing. Because a soviet government is strong? Has control of the military and all that, unlike some start-up or even an established company?

I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. Do you think that soviet states would have negotiated with owners of private property before using it for public benefit?

Still sounds like Ayn Rand and not socialism.

I assume you probably want to know how this kind of leftism is different from others or other ideologies calling themself leftist, rather than for me to write an essay on myself.

What confuses me is that you argue that property owners should be able to demand payment for the use of their property without any further consideration. That is a very conservative capitalist stance. It’s not compatible with any flavor of socialism that I am aware of. In fact, most pro-capitalists would reject it as too far right. The only ideologue, I can think of, that holds this stance even for copyrights is Ayn Rand. Your ideas seem compatible with hers. I don’t understand why you would think of that as socialist or even left.

When you call yourself a socialist, what do you mean by that term?

No. Seriously, why do you want to call yourself a socialist?

Calling property labor, doesn’t make you a socialist.

“We cleaned 860K English and 180K Chinese e-books from Anna’s Archive,” a DeepSeek VL paper, published last March, states.

Hmm.

Note: this is income before any AT&T expenses, just to be clear and fair.

Yes, exactly. By your numbers, their revenue would go down by almost 10% while their operating expenses remain the same. Is it plausible that they could have just lowered prices by 10% and still operated profitably all this time?

It’s funny, considering how Lemley’s convictions on Fair Use are regarded by so many lemmings.

It’s a good analogy for a lot of things. The story mocks the human tendency to go along with obvious nonsense; to conform to expectations.

Such obscenity laws originate in centuries past, when people unironically believed that masturbation makes you go blind or crazy, rather than helping prevent prostate cancer. Society collectively believed that having sex the wrong way would end with you going to hell. Pornography might make the boys gay or wear women’s clothes. Well, if you look at who passes these laws now, maybe those beliefs haven’t died out.

The point is simply that there is nothing inherently harmful in being exposed to porn. Sure, some of it is disturbing or may give you bad ideas about how the world works, but that’s true for any kind of media. Whether referring to minors, eg 17-year-olds, as children is appropriate is another matter.

“harmful to minors”

Indeed, I find that few things have done more to ruin my sense of common decency than HC Andersen’s The Emperor’s New Clothes and that’s a story all about public nudity.

or risk becoming a monster.

Remind me. What became of Turing, a man who saved untold British lives during WW2?

“Had Meta bought plaintiffs’ works in a bookstore or borrowed them from a library and trained its Llama models on them without a license, it would have committed copyright infringement,” wrote plaintiffs’ counsel in the filing.

I wonder how many here agree with that theory.

Why, though? Many lemmings get away with “piracy” via torrents. Meta is in court over it and may very well lose on this count.

It does apply equally to everyone. The lemmy hive mind simply doesn’t understand copyright law.

Not quite. Information always depends on context. It is not a fundamental physical quantity like energy. When you have a piece of paper with english writing on it, then you can read and understand it. If you don’t know the script or language, you won’t even be able to tell if it’s a script or language at all. Some information needs to be in your head already. That’s simply how information works.

You take in information through the senses and do something based on that information. Information flows into your brain through your senses and then out again in the form of behavior. The throughput is throttled to something on the order of 10 bits/s. When you think about it for a bit, you realize that a lot of things are predicated on that. Think of a video game controller. There’s only a few buttons. The interface between you and the game has a bandwidth of only a few bits.

Seems odd that someone from dbzer0 would be very concerned about data ownership. How come?

I don’t exactly know how Perplexity runs its service. I assume that their AI reacts to such a question by googling the name and then summarizing the results. You certainly received much less info about yourself than you could have gotten via a search engine.

See also: Forer Effect aka Barnum Effect