I know you're joking, but some of them are right there

Tomorrow!^oh^wait^wrong^football

I think you're on the money there. Copyright was originally intended as industry regulation, a way to prevent larger book publishers from just copying a smaller publisher's book on day one and flooding the market with their copies. It's applied to many more industries than just books (good!) but also to a wider group than actual publishers (bad!). When someone running a massive free ROMs site gets taken down, that's probably reasonable, they're playing the role of a publisher there and unfairly undercutting the competition (although the penalties in the US are still absurdly steep, as they usually are for individuals in this country). But when someone gets attacked for posting an image on social media, or streamers have to worry about the music playing in their games, or ISPs have to enforce against downloaders of pirated software, or modders have to be careful about linking their mod in such a way that no original code is included, that's not what copyright should be.

Some of those laws are no longer on the books, so I wonder about that one. Like, what does "around the town square" actually mean? There's not a straightforward "town square" in Oxford. And while the article asks "What exactly happened to make Oxford so protective of its town square?", you and I both know the answer is "drunk college students". Also funny that they don't actually show the public sidewalk, but instead the little square between Elliot and Stoddard for the sidewalk law.

Edit: a quick search through the municipal traffic codes doesn't reveal anything, so I'm guessing this is one of Miami's many rumors that happened to get picked up by a less-than-thourough website. Or potentially it used to exist but no longer does. Or maybe I missed it, but I'm willing to bet that's not the case.

I don't think that comment is unreasonable. LLMs can summarize large-ish amounts of information (as long as it fits in the context window) in a human-readable form, and while it's still prone to getting things wrong and I'd rather a human do it all day, it does do it "better than any other technology" that I know of. We can argue about "unique" but strictly speaking it will almost certainly generate an image that didn't exist before. I'd also rather a human make the image for quality's sake, but being fast, cheap, and copyright-free is a useful enough combo in certain situations.

It doesn't really bring up the main issues with AI, but I think that's acceptable in the context, which is "How is AI different from crypto in the context of r/Buttcoin", and in that context "crypto is completely useless" and "AI has minimal uses which may or may not be worthwhile depending on how you evaluate the benefits and negatives" are meaningfully different.

Fish in a Birdcage just released Rule #34 (it is indeed about sex) and Rule #35, Rule #4 (also titled Fish in a Birdcage) is his most famous and Rule #13 is also very good.

Mike Dunford, Cola's lawyer, is fantastic. He has a Twitch channel (questauthority) if you want to hear more from him.

Let me rephrase that: "Coinbase and Bloom Tech illustrate the dangers of ~~starting a startup~~ lying in a regulated industry."

Coinbase hasn't exactly lied, to my knowledge, grouping them with his stupid startup is pretty disingenuous, but he started it.

That strikes me as probably illegal, at least in the US (although I can't find a better source, if someone can find where the EEOC says that it'd be appreciated.)

I had no idea you could even get it on Steam

Also, this case does not make AI works uncopyrightable - only those that have no human input.

This is really important. The particular case tried a very difficult argument, that works created by machine have copyright regardless of human input, which no serious copyright experts thought would work because it's been pretty comprehensively litigated that human creativity is required

They also tried to argue the much more plausible theory that the prompt had creativity, and that the copyright flows down from the prompt to the AI-generated work, but the type of suit they brought didn't permit that argument. That theory still needs to be litigated, and while I would be a bit surprised to see it work, it's entirely possible it will. So I'm not ready to say all AI-generated work is PD just yet.

Of course, regardless of if what comes out of the AI is PD, you can make enough modifications to a PD work and create something you can copyright. Many people are doing enough "touch-ups" to AI art that the final product is potentially copyrightable. Amusingly, the better the generator, the less the human has to do here, and the weaker the protection becomes.

It's called the "US Patent and Trademark Office", so they must be basically the same thing, right‽