I sure hope so. It is important because otherwise copyright will mean jackshit.
*Rant I truly hope politicians spend their time on more pressing issues than squabbling among themselves. Climate change, technological advancement that outpaces our legal framework, consumer protection. So much shit to do.
I've commented it on the other post about the same thing. But I still think it is funny.
There is an article where it looks at the earthquake pattern and correlate it to Makoto Shinkai movie, Suzume. And now this meteor lol.
(And as usual, don't take it too seriously. This is just a fun tidbit ;)
Anonymized is still risky as people speech has a pattern. All it takes is one nutjob to dox and now everyone has a problem.
Edit to add further information why anonymization is hard. US survey and statistics data is jittered in a random way to protect the privacy since it is possible to backtrack the statistics to the person who answers the survey. I think it was explained in a minutephysics video.
That is a whole government department dealing with sensitive data and mathematical proof that their survey result is anonymous. What can a law firm do to guarantee anonymization? Remember, guarantee is a strong word here as it carries legal implication for the firm. If the firm cannot guarantee anonymization, then the company would not want to be liable when shit hits the fan.
I feel his sentiment as he is someone that grows from a small, family-like group which he leads. But that model indeed is incompatible with the pace that they are expanding. He saw that he is not fit for the role of CEO and has since stepped down. But yes, I know he still has a major stake in the company. It is kind of a complex problem. You can't stop the owner from wanting to be the janitor at his own company.
I don't think of it that way. I think the allegation of sexual harassment were ignored is false means sexual harassment report is not ignored, not that it did happen. It means there is a procedure to report it, and to handle it. Remember, innocent until proven guilty. If you just fire the accused employee before the proof is sufficient, it is also giving the accuser power to misuse the reporting procedure. Didn't like someone? Accuse them of sexual harassment.
Why do I interpret it that way? Because for sexual harassment to be noticed, it must be reported. Otherwise, how tf will the company know anything? So, a report did come, now what to do? A. Ignore it, told every party "tough shit" B. Do something and give sanction/disciplinary action if proven true
But what do I know, I am not a lawyer so I know jack shit about workplace regulation.
Calling a license by anything other than its name and stated purpose is something I’d dare to call mislabeling.
Fair point. The explanation itself has to be detached from the license to make it clear. So for example, if I state that my comment here is CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, it only states the license, WHY I licensed it as such is the explanation and not the label for the license. So yeah, without context (the why), it is mislabeling.
While you are correct that lemmy itself does not add a license and many instances do not add a license, it’s not as simple as “the user notifies [you] must abides by [their] licenses.” Jurisdiction matters. The Fediverse host content is pulled from matters. Other myriad factors matter.
But that is true for all content on the internet no? The difference is this time we are talking about a user-generated content without explicit license, now has an explicit license.
As you correctly pointed out, there is no precedence for any of this so as I pointed out unless you’re willing to go to court and can prove damages it is actually useless.
I wouldn't call it useless tho. After all, we will only push the legal framework because people are doing something wack.
It adds depth to the sheep machine does it not?
Adorkable face indeed
Why... why is it more secure? Does it mean AI training is actively abusing copyright law? And this is more secure because they can hide it better?
Best practice for job security
I wouldn't dare call it mislabelling since there is no precedent yet. Just the other day a judge ruled AI generated CSAM is still CSAM. If it can be proven beyond a doubt that an AI output comes from copyrighted works without proper license, will that AI violate the copyright? Also, will AI count as derivatives work from the training material or will it be treated like software compiler? I think a lot of our current legal framework is not up to speed to answer those questions. So I would not call it useless nor misleading.
Also, lemmy doesn't have EULA as far as I am aware of so the license of the content hosted on the instance is by default unlicensed. The user just notifies that to whoever wants to use their comment for whatever purpose, must abide by those licenses.
But the publisher who published it should be liable too. Wtf is their job then? Parasiting off of public funded research?