It’ll be more than a question. But again, how will Australia enforce that? Even if Australia provided a free API for age checks, it would still be a hassle to implement it. Are eg Fediverse devs going to do that?

Australian law enforcement can seize servers that are physically in Australia. It can also cut off cash flow for any business with paying customers in Australia. And all the rest? Even aside from free VPNs, there is a lot of internet that they can’t touch.

They can lean on the likes of Youtube or Facebook to steer people in a more government approved direction. But as soon as people become annoyed or bored, they just go elsewhere beyond government control. If ID requirements are onerous for ordinary people, they will avoid compliant sites from the start.

The government could make Australian ISPs use a blacklist or a whitelist. Serious enforcement is possible, but not without going full totalitarian.

Ok, and how will it be enforced at all?

Why do you believe that?

Something as short as “Skywalker” can’t be copyrighted. You don’t need permission to use a trademark as long as you don’t harm the brand or confuse the customer. Since trademarks are often family names, there are a number of unrelated companies that operate under the same name but in a different business.

While the possession and cultivation of marijuana are already banned in Japan, the country will prohibit its use as well, setting a prison sentence of up to seven years for violation.

Ok, so that clears that up.

I prefer Threads.

You are a very brave person.

Defeatist opinion.

The commercial alternatives hope to make money with every additional user. They use AB testing and statistics to streamline the on-boarding and to increase engagement. The result may not be in the user’s interest (doom-scrolling, ragebait, …) but it works.

For a fediverse instance, any additional user is a cost, not the promise of money. Financially, you wouldn’t want that. Those who fund instances are giving a gift to the world for their own reasons. You can accept the gift or not. Those who keep instances running with donations will usually want to sustain the community of which they are part. They probably don’t want it to change very much.

So, I don’t think matters will change. Partly because the psychological engineering is antithetical to the fediverse ethos (as I see it, in my humble opinion). But mostly because the outcome we see is an inherent result of the incentive structure.

Come to think of it. That DMCA argument would really wreck fair use.

It’s illegal to remove “copyright management information” (CMI). In this case meaning the FOSS license. The argument was, that when copilot spits out verbatim snippets of source code without the license, this constitutes removal of the CMI. The point of the argument was that fair use is not a defense under the DMCA. These verbatim snippets are pretty obvious fair use to me, so countering that defense is important if they hope to get anywhere with their suit.

By the same argument, any meme image is illegal. They are taken from somewhere without the original license or attribution. Yikes.

Don’t listen to me on that. I have no idea how the community feels on copyright or fair use. Whenever AI comes up, the most dogmatic copyright maximalism dominates. On other subjects, the debate is more nuanced. I don’t know how that fits together at all. But I guarantee you, if Alsup ruled on a case like this/OP, they would… Well, most comments would not like the ruling or him.

Yes, I know what you mean. But looking at the comments here, Fair Use is not a popular concept. I remember that Alsup specifically quoted the copyright clause in his ruling. I can’t imagine any argument that would make him rule, on the whole, for the plaintiffs in a case such as this.

Judge William Alsup.

Now I remember that guy. He decided oracle vs google. I can’t imagine he has many fans here.

Wow, long take. I didn’t want “much the same” to bear a lot of meaning. In the german inquisitorial system, in a criminal case, the judge takes over the (police) investigation from the prosecution. When the police become aware of a possible crime, they inform the bureau of the state attorney. A state attorney is responsible for the investigation and for uncovering the truth. But once the case goes to court, the responsibility goes to the judge.

In a civil suit, the parties are basically in charge and not the judge. It’s true that the judge has a more active role in German civil procedure. While the court is not supposed to run its own investigation, it can request additional evidence if it’s necessary to judge the arguments of either side. I am not clear on the details. Where matters of fact must be determined by an expert, either party can request the court to provide one. But they can also make their own arrangements. The court can also solicit an expert opinion on its own, if necessary. Typically, the expert’s opinion is given as a written statement. An oral disposition may happen when questions remain. Afaik, it’s unusual to depose an expert without having first requested a written statement. Either party or the court may question the witness.

Hmm. In what way is the German system more effective? I know of some hair-raising cases. Me, I blame the law-makers and not the judges, but others see it differently. I can’t think of a single related case, where I’d say that the judgement served everyone’s interests.

ETA: Bad question. You explained how the German system is more effective. I’m wondering about cases where I can see this in action. IE: “well-informed and incisive decisions on anything in the computer hardware / EE or computer science fields.”

You should emphasize more that the difference adversarial system vs inquisitorial system exists in criminal law only. In civil/private matters - eg copyright disputes like in this instance - continental Europe handles matters much the same.

It doesn’t work like that. A copy is a copy. Only if you can make it credible that you independently produced the same code, can you get through with that. Hence, clean room implementations. It’s not strictly necessary but deters lawsuits.

Apparently there’s some confusion here what the judge ruled. This particular part is about claims under the DMCA, not copyright infringement. The relevant sections can be seen here: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html [edit: link fixed. The claim was that “copyright management information” was removed; prohibited under these sections.]

Here’s the original text for those who want to know more (link via The Verge): https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24796955-github-copilot-claims-dismissed

I’m categorically unable to name a justice or court jurisdiction anywhere in the US that consistently makes well-informed and incisive decisions on anything in the computer hardware / EE or computer science fields.

Can you name one in Germany? Just asking.

Anyway, at this stage of the trial only legal experts are involved. The judge examines if the legal arguments are sound, assuming the allegations are true. Whether the allegations are actually true will only be determined in the future. That’s also when Fair Use comes in. At that point, you need outside experts to advise on the non-legal aspects.

The Russian reliance on terror tactics makes me wonder what lessons they took away from WW2. This is clearly part of a pattern; a military doctrine, that had already been applied during the fighting in Syria, if not earlier.

Not like this is the first time. It’s not even the second time.

Yes. I think you could say that that being found inside a python pretty much implies being found dead. (There is this one guy, though, but he failed to get himself eaten.)

However, I think it’s just not sufficiently obvious to most people.

Huh. I thought that one was the one that might work, as everyone knows that Americans go bowling all the time. I guess Americans go to the zoo more often than I realized. Or is it something indirect? Like the kid’s bedroom window, which they always use to sneak past the parents, is 1 standard giraffe high? Would be nice for them to be able to feed the giraffes when the circus comes to town.