There are other stablecoins that aren't scams though, like USDC. I think Stripe would probably either create their own USD stable or partner with Circle.
> if you fail to mention that something was made by AI as part of a compound work you could end up losing copyright over the whole thing
The source you linked says the opposite of that: "the inclusion of elements of AI-generated content in a larger human-authored work does not affect the copyrightability of the larger human-authored work as a whole"
The quote you pulled suggests that if the work is majority machine-generated, then it loses copyright protection.
That is, it suggests that even if there are elements of human-generated content in a larger machine-generated work, the combined work as a whole is not eligible for copyright protection. Printed page iii of that PDF talks a bit more about that:
* Copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material, or material where there is insufficient human control over the expressive elements.
* Whether human contributions to AI-generated outputs are sufficient to constitute authorship must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
Just to be sure that I wasn't misremembering, I went through part 2 of the report and back to the original memorandum[1] that was sent out before the full report issued. I've included a few choice quotes to illustrate my point:
"These are no longer hypothetical questions, as the Office is already receiving and
examining applications for registration that claim copyright in AI-generated material. For
example, in 2018 the Office received an application for a visual work that the applicant
described as “autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine.” 7
The application was denied because, based on the applicant’s representations in the
application, the examiner found that the work contained no human authorship. After a
series of administrative appeals, the Office’s Review Board issued a final determination
affirming that the work could not be registered because it was made “without any creative
contribution from a human actor.”"
"More recently, the Office reviewed a registration for a work containing human-authored
elements combined with AI-generated images. In February 2023, the Office concluded
that a graphic novel comprised of human-authored text combined with images generated
by the AI service Midjourney constituted a copyrightable work, but that the individual
images themselves could not be protected by copyright. "
"In the Office’s view, it is well-established that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity. Most fundamentally, the term “author,” which is used in both the Constitution and the Copyright Act, excludes non-humans."
"In the case of works containing AI-generated material, the Office will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of “mechanical reproduction” or instead of an author’s “own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form.” The answer will depend on the circumstances, particularly how the AI tool operates and how it was used to create the final work. This is necessarily a case-by-case inquiry."
"If a work’s traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks
human authorship and the Office will not register it."[1], pgs 2-4
---
On the odd chance that somehow the Copyright Office had reversed itself I then went back to part 2 of the report:
"As the Office affirmed in the Guidance, copyright protection in the United States
requires human authorship. This foundational principle is based on the Copyright Clause in
the Constitution and the language of the Copyright Act as interpreted by the courts. The
Copyright Clause grants Congress the authority to “secur[e] for limited times to authors . . . the exclusive right to their . . . writings.” As the Supreme Court has explained, “the author [of a copyrighted work] is . . . the person who translates an idea into a fixed, tangible expression entitled to copyright protection.”
"No court has recognized copyright in material created by non-humans, and those that
have spoken on this issue have rejected the possibility. "
"In most cases, however, humans will be involved in the creation process, and the work
will be copyrightable to the extent that their contributions qualify as authorship." -- [2], pgs 15-16
---
TL;DR If you make something with the assistance of AI, you still have to be personally involved and contribute more than just a prompt in order to receive copyright, and then you will receive protection only over such elements of originality and authorship that you are responsible for, not those elements which the AI is responsible for.
YouTube is currently running an A/B test for server-side insertion according to what some other people have posted. I'm not getting SSAI ads so I can't really know much about them though.
Exactly. Put another way, tensorflow is not an AI. You can build an AI in tensorflow. You can also resize images in tensorflow (using the traditional algorithms, not AI). I am not an expert, but as I understand, it is common for vision models to require a fixed resolution input, and it is common for that resolution to be quite low due to resource constraints.
Your math is wrong - it's $4B ÷ 815k residents ÷ $27k = 0.18 used Tesla Model 3s per resident. (you accidentally used 27k as both the price and the population)
In my defence, my degree is in Mathematics, so I was guaranteed to fuck up the arithmetic. Thank you for catching that. Should have smelled the order of magnitude :)
JSTOR doesn't get any tax benefit for doing this because they're already fully exempt from US income tax - their parent, Ithaka, is a 501(c)(3) non-profit (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithaka_Harbors).
Grey market phones aren't stolen. Samsung sells phones cheaper in some regions, so arbitrageurs buy them cheap in one region and resell them at a higher price in Mexico. Samsung wouldn't sell region-unlocked phones at the cheaper price because they want to make money.
It's not stealing, but courts over and over, have validated that trademark owners, brandowners, have some control over regional sales channels.
Here's a case starting back in the 90s, over Levis jeans, and imports from a lower cost region. This is somewhat parallel to phone imports from a lower cost region:
Of course, this was about weakening brand perception, as consumer sale price was deemed part of the brand, aka the mark of their trade, trademark.
Thus, it was about the price being lower. In the case discussed in thread, consumers aren't saving on phone cost, retailers are.
But the hook is in, with repect to brand control as a viable limiter on imports and sale, so they could argue grey market phones might hurt the brand, as they've been modified or some such, prior to sale.
Ah, that makes sense and I stand corrected. There should be anti-e-waste legislation that bans or penalizes for this practice.
I'm not sure if region-activation-locking as a concept is unethical. I definitely think that for-profit arbitrage on region-activation-locked devices sold in improper regions should be banned though.
It is e-waste if there is no eventual end user. These devices are transient e-waste while they are stored in countries that they cannot be activated within.
They should be possible to activate anywhere is rather the point. But what does it matter where they are now if they can be activated somewhere, and consequently have value?
All phones are e-waste in the long run. What matters is whether any of their useful life is still in the future or if it's all in the past.
"In economics, a free market is an economic system in which the prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand expressed by sellers and buyers. "
"Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit."
How is "If I buy a good, I should not be able to sell it when/where I see fit? " implied by either of those things?
The idea of the free market in this context comes from Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations, in which he says that a market is free if buyers and sellers can pursue their own self-interest. It's in the interest of the seller to sell the phone at a price higher than they paid for it, and it's in the interest of the buyer to purchase the phone from the seller at a price lower than would otherwise be available.
> he says that a market is free if buyers and sellers can pursue their own self-interest
probably we are agreeing, but just to bring a little more clarity what is meant by "free market" in the adam smith context:
> For classical economists such as Adam Smith, the term free market refers to a market free from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities.[2] They say this implies that economic rents, which they describe as profits generated from a lack of perfect competition, must be reduced or eliminated as much as possible through free competition.
so i'd say sellers trying to create an artificial regional monopoly/oligopoly of sales and high prices is the exact opposite of what adam smith would have preferred...
The idea the supply and demand are manipulated/controlled by the creator of the product, not the market of buyers and sellers. So that negates the private ownership part as well as supply and demand being controlled by buyers and sellers.
