I absolutely agree with the second half, guided by Ian Kerr’s paper “Death of the AI Author”; quoting from the abstract:

Claims of AI authorship depend on a romanticized conception of both authorship and AI, and simply do not make sense in terms of the realities of the world in which the problem exists. Those realities should push us past bare doctrinal or utilitarian considerations about what an author must do. Instead, they demand an ontological consideration of what an author must be.

I think the part courts will struggle with is if this ‘thing’ is not an author of the works then it can’t infringe either?

The thing is these models aren’t aiming to re-create the work of any single authors, but merely to put words in the right order. Imo, If we allow authors to copyright the order of their words instead of their whole original creations then we are actually reducing the threshold for copyright protection and (again imo) increasing the number of acts that would be determined to be copyright protected

clerics

Unsure if intended? You probably meant clerks

But then again clerics also works since they probably do worship capitalism as if it were a religion

Couldn’t help looking it up - so satisfied that it’s called a lounge of lizards

I’ve always had the opinion that anyone who can’t handle those being free to love who they want must have repressed feelings - I don’t see why that should apply any different depending on what country you live or whether you grew up in a society where the first repressed person made the original rule

It’s not so much a matter of whether the service would work or not but whether the corporate directors would be exposed to criminal liability for continuing to provide such services without OFCOM being able to “understand” the encrypted messages: see 99(4) of the Bill

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137

TIL about Italy’s shunning of their past in contrast to the “collective guilt” felt by Germans after WWII

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italiani_brava_gente

Not BNN Bloomberg for any confused Canadians

And then there’s Maud

Isn’t this doomed to fail in light of the SC’s guidance in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v Taamneh ??

Edit: "The platforms’ failure to remove such content, Justice Thomas wrote, was not enough to establish liability for aiding and abetting, which he said required plausible allegations that they ‘gave such knowing and substantial assistance to ISIS that they culpably participated in the Reina attack.’” (copied from a NYT article)

Is it the one that reminds you when your microphone is off when you say the key phrase?