• 1 Post
  • 111 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: August 14th, 2024

help-circle
  • No it only applies to books because books have an entirely different legal system than everything else.

    SCOTUS case: White-Smith Music Publishing Co. v. Apollo Co. (1908) created a new issue for the Government about copying people’s printed works.

    Copyright Act of 1909 is passed. New framework is established, books get an entirely different legal system from everything else. Publishers lobbied to prevent it’s passage and fought it especially hard in the Great Depression because libraries were becoming very popular during that time.

    But printed books have a whole different thing that applies to them that doesn’t apply to anything else. So you can’t use “physical medium” because books are a special case and have their own special US law.

    For books, transformative, has to deal with the intent.

    • Book - I want to read them.
    • Anthropic - I want to convert it to weights for use in massive matrix multiplication operations.

    Since the intent is different, the book first sale doctrine applies here to grant transformative. Which is but just one pillar in their defense.

    Same goes for what Google did like a decade ago.

    • Book - I want to read them.
    • Google - I want to convert it to a searchable database of terms that can refer you to the correct ISBN.

    And transformative applies too to things like DVDs, it’s just under a different framework known as the DMCA.

    • DVD - I want to watch the movie.
    • MP4 - I want to watch the movie.

    That’s not transformative.

    • DVD - I want to watch the movie.
    • MP4 - I want to take clips to make memes.

    That is transformative. And again, transformative is but one thing out of the whole “fair use” thing.

    This is the thing. Those news articles are oversimplifying a massive amount of legal technicalities. I’m not saying what Anthropic is doing is correct or not. What I am saying is that the conclusion that people are getting from these stories is like the last 10% of a massively technical legal battle. And running with that small amount can lead to conclusions that aren’t true.

    And I know someone is going to bring it up. No you aren’t LEGALLY allows to rip a copy of a DVD for your personal use. Violates the DMCA. BUT in order to sue you, a publisher has to know ahead of time before discovery, that you broke their encryption scheme, which if you only keep it personally, is impossible for them to ever enforce. So we have a law that is written in a way, that if you never put it online, it’s impossible to enforce the law. As a summary of how all that works.




  • The issue between the two systems is isolation. In the old C-13 series if one track needed repair, you have to shut steam off to that track. The rest can keep going. In the EMALS there’s just the one centralize power architecture, so if a track has to go down, it takes the whole thing down with it.

    Few really want to return to steam. It requires a lot of the ship to house special high pressure equipment and requires more maintenance overall to keep it running. Additionally, a lot of the drones designed need the precise control that the EMALS provides to not break apart. But it’s hard to point out all the various tooling that has to go on behind the scenes when one track goes down with steam, when the whole effing thing with EMALS has to go down and no launching happens for hours.

    And that’s ultimately what happens, the metrics that are being used are getting aircraft into the air, not overall downtime or cost to operate. And EMALS is still struggling to hit the numbers it has to hit and likely won’t hit them till around 2030. Every time it goes down, every zero aircrafts it gets pulls that metric down hard.


  • See entry level people believe it’s fundamentals. Smarter people understand that it’s reading people and knowing when they’re dumb enough to invest and knowing when to bail before they wise up. So if you think about it in those respects, it is indeed an honest to goodness “real” thing. People are really being ripped off by con-artist.

    But yeah, the days of the 1890s to 1930s of structured investment, measured risk, and mitigation of the unforeseen, those days are dead. There aren’t market fundamentals outside of being able to identify rubes.





  • So why wouldn’t that extend to all those other things I listed?

    There’s a fundamental difference between the action prohibited and the means by which that is carried out. We can ban drunk driving, now we can enforce that by arresting people driving drunk or shooting everyone who walks out of a bar that touches a car. The latter is extreme but technically does the thing we are after. If we murder everyone who walks out of bar drunk, we technically prevent drunk drivers.

    That’s the issue. We are trying to make it where computers keep us in check. That’s a bad idea for sort of the same reasons why installing breathalyzers in every car would be a bad idea. We’re trying to paper over actual enforcement. So that way when there’s a failure we don’t have to blame law makers for making bad choices or law enforcement for not doing their job, we can just blame computers.

    I just hope you can understand why that’s bad.

    Like… The flock cameras. Made to be able to pinpoint the motions of criminals so that law enforcement doesn’t have to. That’s a great starting intention, but having cameras that watch everyone at all times, that’s bad. And I think you can understand why it would be bad.

    Kids still drink, kids still vape, kids still get behind the wheel when they ought not to. It’s up to us humans to enforce our rules on other humans. And the more we forget that, the more we hand power over to whoever is controlling the computers or technical aspects or whatever.

    If parents don’t want their kids watching porn, that’s a pretty easy fix that doesn’t require us to hand over critical functions of our computers to some 3rd party to, at some later date, do something we know not of.

    Like goodness how is the bad aspects of this not obvious outright? Like how did we start getting to a point where we’re so blind to how all of this can go off the rails so quickly? All these are bad things for reasons that’s really complicated that might not fit in 5000 characters or less. But they’re bad. The whole having a computer verify age by scanning the barcode, what happens when that company signs off on a deal with health insurance? What would happen if the Kroger plus card data was sent over to your insurance provider? Everything you bought at the grocery store is something that your insurance provider has access to?

    Like c’mon how are we not seeing this? It’s not about “kid should have access to porn”, it’s about how we go about enforcing the whole “kids shouldn’t have access to porn.” You have to understand, I’m making a statement not about the “ends,” I’m making a statement about the “means.”

    We all seem to be always getting so caught up on the end goal that we forget to stop and consider the actual path we’ve selected. We’re so preoccupied with whether or not we can prevent something, that we don’t stop to think if we should reconsider how we go about it.

    Please I’m begging you, there’s a really important point in this and we keep failing to see it, A LOT! Like, I’m glad everyone is starting to understand the dangers of having a Ring camera everywhere, but it’s so frustrating that it took a Super Bowl ad for it to finally sink in how bad an idea it is when a lot of people were pointing this out very early on with the Ring TOS.

    I’m getting old and I’m getting tired that this keep happening, I don’t want any of us to be agreeing to something that’s got a pretty easy fix for it already, that’s got massive ramifications down the road if we go down the purposed path. It’s not ends, it’s the means, it’s the means. We keep selecting ones that have that really bad consequences.










  • Rule 8, Section 5.

    All absentees for whom no sufficient excuse is made may, by order of a majority of those present, be sent for and arrested, wherever they may be found, by the sergeant-at-arms or an officer appointed by the sergeant-at-arms for that purpose, and their attendance shall be secured and retained.

    And

    Until a quorum appears, should the roll call fail to show one present, no business shall be transacted, except to compel the attendance of absent members or to adjourn. It shall not be in order to recess under a call of the house.

    It does not require a quorum, it is a measure voted on by those present. This is the same thing in lots of State legislatures including the US House. There’s usually a rule that allows whoever is present to be able to bring a motion to those present to force those who are not present to the floor. It’s usually one of a handful of motions that don’t require quorum.