chottocharaii

I don't understand this perspective. Why should I resent the creation of value from behaviours that I would be doing anyway.

This isn't going to work so long as WikiData is controlled by admins that misapply the notability criteria to delete information they subjectively consider trivial

I think the next frontier is a a wiki-style, collaborative site, deliberately purposed at storing information for LLMs

Two problems: - Incentivising decentralised infrastructure (this solves that) - Incentivising content creation (completely different issue, will always require a political solution, and cannot be solved by technologists)

These kinds of comments are legally ignorant. I’m always taken aback by these kinds of “but actually” comments on HN that ‘correct’ another user without any regard to how the law would be applied.

I think it’s a reasonable explanation to a reasonable moral decision. Good for Harvard

"My map represents the first attempt to map Australian laws, cases and regulations across the Commonwealth, States and Territories semantically, that is, by their underlying meaning."

I think Jade.io has had a go at this, IIRC. This isn't to detract upon your amazing work though, great stuff.

This is such a boring, semantic argument

NVIDIA’s products can colloquially be described as commodities in some contexts, as GPUs from NVIDIA can be interchangeable with GPUs from other manufacturers like AMD. For specific tasks like gaming or basic computing, the brand may not matter as much as the specifications, making them somewhat commodity-like in those scenarios

Whilst this isn’t the traditional economic definition of commodity, speaking loosely, I think it’s fair enough to describe GPUs as a form of commodity. The important thing is what’s being communicated, not the semantic definition. The above comment’s point was pretty clear IMO

Okay so if that’s the case the developers/owners will work out the most economic model; whether it’s best to satisfy demand with bays or without bays

This is self-correcting. Minimums only ensure an inappropriate amount of parking will be built

Well said !!

The analogy is apt

think there’s a misunderstanding. in my jurisdiction we use the word offence to refer to criminal actions. If the penalty is only civil, then this bolsters the case for being bold toward omens treatment of orphan works

We need orphan work legislation to clarify the law in this area

Riskier legal plays have been made

In ‘orphan work’ situations as long as a person had made a good faith effort to locate the copyright owner, and therefore isn’t infringing someone’s copyright wilfully; criminal liability won’t apply. The worst you’ll realistically face is an after the fact civil suit

I’d expect that if the maker undertook a thorough and well-documented search for the rights holder; then just made it anyway, they’d legally be covered

1) It might be hard for the rights holder to assert their copyright at a later stage, if they lack the evidence to do so at the outset 2) any damages awarded might be mitigated by the attempts to search for the rights holder, especially if the ‘true’ owner was contacted at some stage. Seems more likely they’d be compensatory as opposed to punitive

I know this isn’t the prevailing legal practice, but as a lawyer, the lack of a willingness to be bold in these legal situations has always surprised me

Perhaps the tail risk of being slapped down is just too large

I’ve always wondered about a business model of searching for such works, undertaking a bona-fide effort to find the owner, and then just selling it as your own if one can’t be identified. (Perhaps with a war chest kept in reserve for the rare instances licensing fees are demanded later). ‘Copyright squatting’ if you will

OTOH slavery is so morally abhorrent that it far outweighs any positive contributions a person might make in their lifetime. I think its good that society condemns it in the strongest possible manner, including by renaming

Or, just let people and computers be inspired

Ideas have never been the scope of copyright and it wasn’t in its democratic mandate. If creatives want that change, fine, advocate for a change of the law

why take it literally

What you’re describing requires an ability to copyright style on top of expression. That would be an unacceptable constraint on freedom of speech and artistic freedom in my view

The ability of an industry to turn a profit should not constrain the ability of the general public to communicate ideas. Expression is the only thing that should be copyrighted against

Why not just leave your account inactive?

Oh you. You nailed it. That's the core difference. /s

Its more efficient for them to satisfice through obtaining graduates with good signalling factors (good schools) than sort the wheat from the chaff themselves

Ensuring opportunities for working class and marginalised people is an issue that can only be addressed by community or government

This just in: businesses employ people

Yes it'd be a derivative work owned by Paolini. Paolini would have copyright to the derivative work, to the extent that he has rights over derivative material. However, the prompter would have nothing

ITT: HN attempt an amateur discussion of legal theory, without referencing decades of scholarship on the topic

Splatoon ... Arms ... Nintendo Labo ...

They will. They'll lease to someone not on welfare.

(laughs in Australian)

a few things: 1) it can be used by defense attorneys if they want to discredit an officer during a trial 2) it can be used for victim’s or abuse to obtain context and realise they’re not alone 3) public naming and shaming disincentivises bad behaviour

'Hindsight is 20/20' is an odd way to respond to a regular financial occurrence since the ledger was invented. This stuff is in no sense outside the realm of a responsible CFO's imagination