Japanese Government Calls on Sora 2 Maker OpenAI to Refrain From Copyright Infringement, Says Characters From Manga and Anime Are 'Irreplaceable Treasures' That Japan Boasts to the World
(www.ign.com)
from simple@piefed.social to technology@lemmy.world on 15 Oct 17:04
https://piefed.social/post/1374404
from simple@piefed.social to technology@lemmy.world on 15 Oct 17:04
https://piefed.social/post/1374404
threaded - newest
I don’t think these companies give a shit 😥. If it means US companies fall behind the White House is going to aide with these companies and allow it. Or hostilely take over your company like they’re doing with Tiktok.
So, the “don’t use copyrighted data in a training corpus” crowd probably isn’t going to win the IP argument. And I would be quite surprised if IP law changes to accommodate them.
However, the “don’t generate and distribute infringing material” is a whole different story. IP holders are on pretty solid ground there. One thing that I am very certain that IP law is not going to permit is just passing copyrighted data into a model and then generating and distributing material that would otherwise be infringing. I understand that anime rightsholders often have something of a tradition of sometimes letting fan-created material slide, but if generative AI massively reduces the bar to creating content, I suspect that that is likely to change.
Right now, you have generative AI companies saying — maybe legally plausibly — that they aren’t the liable ones if a user generates infringing material with their model.
And while you can maybe go after someone who is outright generating and selling material that is infringing, something doesn’t have to be commercially sold to be infringing. Like, if LucasArts wants to block for-fun fan art of Luke and Leia and Han, they can do that.
One issue is attribution. Like, generative AI companies are not lying when they say that there isn’t a great way to just “reverse” what training corpus data contributed more to an output.
However, I am also very confident that it is very possible to do better than they do today. From a purely black-box standpoint, one possibility would be, for example, to use TinEye-style fuzzy hashing of images and then try to reverse an image, probably with a fuzzier hash than TinEye uses, to warn a user that they might be generating an image that would be derivative. That won’t solve all cases, especially if you do 3d vision and generative AI producing models (though then you could also maybe do computer vision and a TinEye-equivalent for 3D models).
Another complicating factor is that copyright only restricts distribution of derivative works. I can make my own, personal art of Leia all I want. What I can’t do is go distribute it. I think — though I don’t absolutely know what case law is like for this, especially internationally — that generating images on hardware at OpenAI or whatever and then having them move to me doesn’t count as distribution. Otherwise, software-as-a-service in general, stuff like Office 365, would have major restrictions on working with IP that locally-running software would not. Point is that I expect that it should be perfectly legal for me to go to an image generator and generate material as long as I do not subsequently redistribute it, even if it would be infringing had I done so. And the AI company involved has no way of knowing what I’m doing with the material that I’m generating. If they block me from making material with Leia, that’s an excessively-broad restriction.
But IP holders are going to want to have a practical route to either be able to go after the generative AI company producing the material that gets distributed, or the users generating infringing material and then distributing it. AI companies are probably going to say that it’s the users, and that’s probably correct. Problem is from a rightsholder standpoint, yeah, they could go after the users before, but if it’s a lot cheaper and easier to create the material now, that presents them with practical problems. If any Tom, Dick, and Harry can go out and generate material, they’ve got a lot more moles to whack in their whack-a-mole game.
And in that vein, an issue that I haven’t seen come up is what happens if generative AI companies start permitting deterministic generation of content – that is, where if I plug in the same inputs, I get the same outputs. Maybe they already do; I don’t know, run my generative AI stuff locally. But supposing you have a scenario like this:
I make a game called “Generic RPG”, which I sell.
I distribute — or sell — DLC for this game. This uses a remote, generative AI service to generate art for the game using a set of prompts sold as part of the DLC for that game. No art is distributed as part of the game. Let’s say I call that “Adventures A Long Time Ago In A Universe Far, Far Away” or something that doesn’t directly run afoul of LucasArts, creates enough distance. And let’s set aside trademark concerns, for the sake of discussion. And lets say that the prompts are not, themselves infringing on copyright (though I could imagine them doing so, let’s say that they’re sufficiently distant to avoid being derivative works).
Every user buys the DLC, and then on their computer, reconstitutes the images for the game. At least if done purely-locally, this should be leg
It sounds like it would be an analogue issue that is already similarly solved in other respects.
For example, its not only illegal for someone to make and sell known illegal drugs, but its additionally illegal to make or sell anything that is not the specifically illegal drug but is analogous to it in terms of effect (and especially facets of chemical structure)
So any process that produces an end result analogous to copyright infringement would be viewed as copyright infringement, even if it skirts the existing laws on a technical basis, is probably what the prevailing approach will be
Hmm. I’m not familiar with that as a legal doctrine.
kagis
At least in the US — and this may not be the case everywhere — it sounds like there’s a law that produces this, rather than a doctrine. So I don’t think that there’s a general legal doctrine that would automatically apply here.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Analogue_Act
But I guess that it might be possible to pass a similar such law for copyright, though.
This is a distressingly unusually solid analysis for lemmy. I agree with one exception–writing to memory absolutely counts as a distribution. Accordingly, if a generative model output an infringing work, it for sure could create liability for infringement. I think this will ultimately work similarly to music copyright where conscious/explicitly intentional copying is not itself the threshold test, but rather degree of similarity. And if you have prompts that specifically target towards infringement, you’re going to get some sort of contributory infringement structure. I think there is also potentially useful case law to look at in terms of infringement arising out of work-for-hire situations, where the contractor may not have infringed intentionally but the supervisor knew and intended their instructions to produce an effectively infringing work. That is, if there is any case law on this pretty narrow fact pattern.
Is any of it infringing? Explain the knock-off music & art in popular media when they don’t want to pay royalty fees for the authentic article. Explain knock-off brands. Cheap imitations to sidestep copyright restrictions have been around long before generative AI, yet businesses aren’t getting sued: they apparently understand legal standards enough to safely imitate. Why is shoddy imitation for distribution okay when human-generated yet not when AI-generated?
I don’t think your understanding of copyright infringement is solid.
Even supposing someone manages to generate work whose distribution infringes copyright, wouldn’t legality follow the same model as a human requesting a commercial (human-based) service to generate that work?
I fear that this does not cleanly apply to Japan because of their somewhat uniquely active doujinshi (fan work) culture. To give an idea of how big a deal doujinshi are, the largest western convention San Diego Comic Con only draws around 130,000 attendants. The largest Doujinshi convention Comiket drew 750,000 attendants before COVID. These works are explicitly distributed and redistributed for commercial profit (though admittedly usually not at any profitable scale).
Japan copyright law has explicit exceptions for doujinshi, having recognised the immense value to the industry. So many successful artists started by creating and selling doujinshi, which are usually explicitly derivative works of IP.
Doujinshi - Wikipedia - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doujinshi
Yeah, and in the rest of the world where copyright is enforced, it’s first of all enforced against things like doujinshi. That’s the main financial force behind it. Japan just preserved saner rules for domestic culturally important industry, screwing the potential new ones.
OK, it’s not like they had much choice, US and Berne Convention style copyright was spread almost by threat of sanctions when it was a new thing.
That’s their whole business model
japan:
- people make rule34 porn of underage children: “i sleep"
- people make unsanctioned videos of characters from mega-corps like nintendo doing stupid stuff: “i weep”
always interesting to see where their priorities lie.
Insane that that’s your takeaway from this post. This had nothing to do with underage children, so why is your mind already there? So fucking weird.
.
.
AI is like stealing a brick from everyone in your town to build your own house. As a medical writer it has absolutely destroyed my business.
And build it seeming convincingly well before it falls apart once a storm passes by.
i heard it pretty much ruined some career of corporate writers, on certain subs, although i dont know the extent of it. on one post, the user said the company was pretty much okay with the fact that thier low-quality AI generated writings will result in less clientele and less revenue, but no overhead of hiring an outside writer
Yeah. So medical writers have it really rough. I was making $100k+ last year. I just exhausted unemployment. The problem is that you can feed AI a list of approved claims and basically feed it a ton of examples and it gets 85% of the way there. Of course it’s ripping off our work to do that, but cash is king. I haven’t checked in a bit, but website traffic was down 90%. So, they essentially lost millions to save $100k.
Are we talking about pages like webmd?
More like a claims database. We relied a lot on PubMed, which hosts a wealth of clinical data, original research, case studies, systematic reviews, etc. I love PubMed. It’s the Brooklyn Bridge of peer-reviewed stuff.
oh yea, i used ncbi/pubmd to look for articles, and then search for the whole research article on places like researchgate. from the job search site, ai also ruining peoples ability to get interviewed, because AI is used to screen applicants, and applicants using it to make hordes of “resume”
WEBMD is pretty much ecyclopedia for diseases, something you can use wikipedia for too.i think medical writer, would write something to be approvable or not by the insurance or billing.
how is that relevant to AI; Minors AND nintendo doing some IP nazi stuff is not the same as AI stealing content.
Drawings, as long as they’re easy to differentiate from reality, should be fine. Otherwise we will continue to slide down on the slippery slope of censorship of adult content, and one day short women and lack of a pubic hair will also be considered CSAM (I knew people who did so).
The fact that you’re trying to drag completely irrelevant shit into it about paedophilia, shows how staggeringly weak the pro-OpenAI argument is.
OpenAI is copyright infringement.
OenAI replies: “but line go up…?”
I’m amazed that these shady chatbot apps aren’t getting sued to death. I see ads all the time for Simpsons, Family Guy, Incredibles characters and I’m like “Disney is going to murder you.”
Disney bought into a long history of Fox animated properties being lax in infringement enforcement online.
But this is a whole different level. That’s where I agree with you.
They’ll wait until the bubble bursts (or OpenAI shows signs of weakness) and then they’ll eat it alive.
It’s not profitable to go after them when the government is tweeting out Pokémon ICE commercials and the president is making deepfakes of himself.
And the other government with large contributors is China and intellectual property rights have never been strong there. Walk around a startup and you’ll see plenty of posters they’re made with their products and with the faces of Elon Musk or Steve Jobs there as if they’re endorsing or part of the product
And the other government with large contributors is China and intellectual property rights have never been strong there. Walk around a tech startup in China and you’ll see plenty of posters they’ve made with their products and with the faces of Elon Musk or Steve Jobs there as if they’re endorsing or part of the product
they use westerners, even hiring white people to be the face of thier company, its to "legitimize thier shady companies its very common. they make the westerners go to events and pretend like they own it, but not do anything for the companies internal workings. thats why alot of products on amazon that are from china uses white people in thier ads.
NVIDIA will want thier investment back at some point too. oracle is going to be left holding the bag on all the useless datacenters they built.
They will just make deal with OpenAI that benefit both sides while all the small players get crushed. Same as with all types of media…
Why are you seeing ads?
On mobile most of the time.
No adblock?
Nah, not worth the trouble most of the time. I use it in my browser, but not at the app level.
“Irreplaceable treasures”
ROFL!
.
Hate for AI vs hate for big corporations and copyright laws. Which thing that they hate will Lemmy members defend passionately?
Likely, whatever benefits the little guy. Most people don’t have a problem with copyright laws in a vacuum. It’s the abuse of those by large corporate entities that are the issue.
Well in this case there’ s no question - OpenAI benefit the “little guy” more.
If we had a fair distribution of wealth I wouldn’t care about either of these really.
Most artists care about attribution/fame somewhat but if they could live comfortably they wouldn’t care about royalties much or others using their art.
Likewise for AI, automation is an amazing thing for civilization but when it is gatekeeped and used to make the rich richer it’s just exploitation of workers everywhere since they have to work as hard as they did one century ago with, arguably, less buying power.
A “fair distribution of wealth” isn’t really a thing though. What you likely consider “fair” is most likely “not fair” to high income earners, correct?
Yes and idfaf. Work as much as you want to. No one gets a second home before everyone has at least one. That’s my position.
AI companies are not on the side of copyright reform or abolition. They just want an exception for themselves. They very much believe in trade secrets. They probably want copyright to eventually cover the current grey areas so that they can stop pretending they give a damn about open models.
It’s not unreasonable to demand AI companies to play by the same rules as everyone else.
But when you hate those very rules, shouldn’t you be cheering on the people that are seemingly ignoring them and are likely to try and challenge them in court/lobby to be changed/removed? Right? “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” and all that?
Oh, but not when those people are evil capitalist companies that make AI product lol.
Like I said, the AI companies are not on the same side. The AI companies in the fight for their own selfish reasons. They’re eventually just going to make the copyright situation even more byzantine. They also make the copyright reform/abolition people look bad.
It’s like if I say I’m an Anarchist and then I have to constantly say “well actually I don’t advocate for looting and vandalism nonsense, those dipshits don’t know shit about Anarchism”. Do you know how hard it is to advocate for more reasonable copyright policy reflecting modern times, when the current big crisis in the mind of artists and creators are the dipshit companies blatantly violating the law?
One issue is that they’re not blatantly violating the law though. There’s no law saying you can’t create art etc of copyrighted material. It’s legal basically unless you’re then selling it.
With training AI models, again there’s nothing illegal about that. Some companies and people want it to be illegal, but it currently isn’t and realistically never should be since laws exist around the use of copyrighted content (as mentioned above). Why should it matter if it’s a computer doing the “learning” compared to a person?
It’s what you do with the content that is controlled by law, not how you created it.
yeah like he gaf
I am cool with everything stuffed into AI and freely distributed, whatever the form. Bluntly, I think copyright sucks, and want it gone. Nintendo shouldn’t be able to patent game mechanics, and I would like to see more mashups of things.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.today/pictrs/image/e4063f4c-2795-4f4c-b7c2-9b9d9651611e.jpeg">
Ah, a man of culture - DBZ Team Training is a classic. I also hear good things about Super Mariomon, though I haven’t tried it yet myself.
I agree that I should be able to use whatever you make and sell it for money without crediting you because I’m a human just like you. We’re basically related so whatever you make is also mine because we’re pretty try much the same person.
I will support the elimination of copyright. But, as long as copyright exists, I will reject and resist AI.
That said, there are a number of other reasons I think AI sucks, it’s not limited to copyright.
i support elimination of IP copyright for medications, lessen the time for other forms of IP, like movie/show franchises.
I don’t think copyright is currently serving it’s purpose “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”. And it should be eliminated anywhere it is not doing that.
Closest to my pocketbook is software (I’m a programmer), and I think we’d almost certainly be better off without copyright of any kind on software. It would mean exercise of some of our freedom around software would have to be implemented via reverse engineering, but it would make that route much more available / less risky for software that is current not Free Software. But, maybe I’m extra jaded because software is almost always done as “work-for-hire” so the author doesn’t actually hold the copyright, the Capitalist employer does.
I support the elimination of copyright in it’s current form
The way it was initially was fine IMO: 14 years, with an option to renew it at the end of those 14 years. ONCE.
Now in terms of patenting medications, if it was partially paid for with public money it’s the public’s patent. In other words it’s open for everyone. Made a new medication but took a government grant to help fund it? It’s public when it comes out, enjoy a nice hearty reward check for your efforts.
Those are patents, not copyrights. There are a bunch of different forms of intellectual property. Off the top of my head:
Copyright
Trademark
Patent
Moral (not very substantial in the US, but more-meaningful in France)
IMO, the way it should be is that concepts and art should be free to be used by anyone. However, specific incarnations made someone can’t be copied. For example, Nintendo can make a Pokemon game, as can Sega with the same characters. Naturally, Nintendo can make a Shin Megami Mario game.
The important thing is that the company or people behind an incarnation is distinctly labelled, so that people can’t confuse who made what. In this way, variants of a media can fulfill niches that otherwise wouldn’t be possible. Say, for example, a WoodRocket “Jessie Does James” hentai anime.
I have, in the past, kind of wished that settings and characters could not be copyrighted. I realize that there’s work that goes into creating each, but I think that we could still live in a world where those weren’t protected and interesting stuff still gets created. If that were to happen, then I agree, it’d be necessary to make it very clear who created what, since the setting and characters alone wouldn’t uniquely identify the source.
Like, there are things like Greek mythology or the Robin Hood collection of stories, very important works of art from our past, that were created by many different unaffiliated people. They just couldn’t be created today with our modern stories, because the settings and characters would be copyrighted and most rightsholders don’t just offer a blanket grant of rights to use them.
That’s actually one unusual and notable thing H.P. Lovecraft did — if you’ve ever seen stuff in the Cthulhu Mythos, that’s him. He encouraged anyone who wanted to do so to create stuff using his universe. One reason why we have that kind of collection of Lovecraftian stuff.
But you can’t do that with, say, Star Wars or a lot of other beloved settings.
The Touhou franchise strikes me as the modern Lovecraft. People are creating fangames, and go on to make them into commercial products. Around the 22nd or thereabout, “Shrine Maiden Wars” will be released, which is a take on the Super Robot Wars formula, but with the Touhou cast. It is an incredibly vibrant ecosystem of fanworks, where most people get to have fun AND profit.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.today/pictrs/image/86768b04-ea1a-40ac-ab0f-6aaeb66323b2.jpeg">
Touhou Luna Nights Is such a Fun Game! It was the first Touhou Game I played because I’m don’t like Bullet Hell’s. If someone reads this and is into Metroidvanias, give it a shot!
I probably will get it when Turkey Day rolls around. Anyhow, counter-suggestion: Check out La-Mulana if you like puzzles with your Metroidvania. They are extremely long and difficult games, but is worth your time if you got the lateral thinking to puzzle out the riddles and enjoy things like King’s Quest.
Looks interesting, I will check it out during Christmas vacation. Thanks!
Once you start studying non capitalist propaganda, the idea of “intellectual property” becomes transparently harmful. Copyrights don’t protect ideas, they protect the wealth of rich people.
Indeed. I’m not against copyrights owned by individuals. Corporations owning rights is downright dystopian.
I'm not even sure that IP being owned by non-natural persons is the problem, for example I could see a coop collectively owning copyrights/patents relevant to their work. The problem is the frankly ridiculous amount of time granted for copyrights and obvious methods being patented.
Change both of those and you keep the benefit of innovative individuals/small groups having legal protection from large corporations muscling in and stealing their work and get rid of most of the damage done by the current system.
So, we can use Donald Duck, but not Harry Potter? I don’t quite understand why. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to write my own Harry Potter books? (not that I would).
It should fall under more general laws against fraud. The main harm in copyright violation is copying something and claiming to be the original author, thereby stealing credit for it. If a reasonable person would mistake your product as coming from the original source, then you have committed fraud and should be held liable for damages.
However, if you make a spinoff and it’s obviously distinct such that a reasonable person wouldn’t mistake your work as coming from the original creator, that should be protected.
So yeah, if I want to make a Pokemon game and it is very distinct from anything The Pokemon Company has worked on (either directly or indirectly), then it should be totally fine. The only copyright violation is if I directly copy any artwork, but if I produce my own renditions, I should be in the clear.
Everyone here is either on the side of hating big AI companies or hating IP law. I proudly hate both.
This is the way
2 wrongs don’t make a right, I did enjoy
on the topic.
We need two things:
They should happen in that order, and ideally copyright would only be awarded to individuals (or perhaps specifically named lists of individuals, with some reasonable cap), not corporations. The current system is absolutely bonkers.
Making it so corporations cannot directly own some random valuable thing?
It’s a nice thing to think about, but it has 0% chance of happening in our current system.
They kind of could. They could employ someone to own the copyright, and pay them handsomely to retain control of that copyright.
That’s honestly how it should be. The same should be true for patents.
Trademark, however, should be company controlled.
Oh I didn’t mean that it couldn’t be done. Just that it wouldn’t be. The people who control such things are actively moving our system in the opposite direction.
Not without a populist movement, no.
And IMO, it shouldn’t be our top priority either. We should focus on electoral reform so it’s easier to get decent representatives in office, making it easier to pass stuff like this.
I disagree, because I think all of these things address the wrong problem.
Individuals should be able to gain from their own inventions, and others shouldn’t be able to force them into poverty by stealing their IP. Corporations especially should not be incentivised to do that.
Then again, unfettered capitalism is geared towards incentivising corporations to do that.
The answer isn’t to weaken people’s already vanishing IP, but to change what’s incentivised. Also to stop treating corporations as people. They aren’t.
IP protections are stronger than ever! If you write a novel and a company takes that without making a deal with you, almost any law firm will take that case with no payment until you get a massive settlement/judgement. You need to have evidence, of course, but IP is one thing the courts take very seriously.
Protecting IP is not an issue, the issue is the protections last way too long and are generally owned by corporations through employment contracts. I don’t think that should be legal. Instead, you should only be allowed to grant your employer a perpetual, royalty-free license to use your work and perhaps a noncompete for some reasonable time after (i.e. can’t license your work to specific competitors), and that agreement should be void if they terminate your contract unlawfully. The creator should always be able to use their creations for their own benefit.
But yeah, the real issue is incentives, and this dramatically changes incentives. Instead of a company like Disney milking their IPs for decades, they’ll need to continue to innovate because they can’t rely on courts to preserve their monopoly. Pokemon was created about 30 years ago and fans have continually complained about the state of the IP (games are samey and whatnot), so it’s high time they have some competition with that IP. Likewise for so many other popular IPs that companies just sit on and milk and only innovate when that stops being profitable.
If you change the IP structure, you’ll see a big shift in the creative market.
That’s actually the law in Germany. Here it’s not called copyright but originator’s right. The big caveat being that things you create while under contract are licensed to companies. But the originator’s rights can not be transferred or erased.
Of course international contracts severely muddy the waters here.
That’s how it should be, and that’s awesome that Germany does that!
But remember piracy is legal for the big AI companies.
$1.5b judgement against Anthropic for it (not paid yet of course, gotta see how it plays from here)
It’s a “heads-I-win / tails-you-lose” system when business can violently extract the value of labor coming and going.
Either the state protects owners of IP (inevitably a business entity looking to collect rents on its use) or it facilitates robbing the original artist (inevitably a talented individual/team that lacks the money for a lengthy legal fight). The legal system never seems to break in favor of the people themselves. It can only exist as a gradient to move wealth from the sweet of one’s brow to the pocket of one’s bosses.
Didn’t Japan rule that AI was fine to infringe copyright to train? Why are they complaining now?
Japan didn’t think the face eating leopards would eat their face.
its okay if they did it, but not okay if a outsider does it.-japan
I guess that cost a few dinners and holidays, maybe even some fancy tech stuff. But probably took them to some conference, where they showcased “what AI will be capable in just a few years, only if they could train it on copyrighted material”.
The argument for training an AI on copyright materials is different than the argument for allowing it to generate and distribute copyright infringing materials.
Based on what I saw while lurking around the site formerly known as Twitter, while some Japanese creatives are totally hostile to AI with their traditional and digital artwork being poached for “training”, others are jumping into Sora to enliven their waifu artwork, mostly posed 3D models or from video games.
.
Wow, Elon himself on Lemmy!
The stubbornness of calling it Twitter is really silly. Imagine insisting Edge is AcTuAlLy Internet Explorer, same energy.
It’s called x now, you access it by going to c.com. it’s stupid, but you need to face it and accept that Twitter and what Twitter used to be is gone.
Stop using the Nazi platform, period. This refusal to let go of Twitter and still giving Elon money and influence by continuing to use his platform while insisting you’re making some sort of statement by making fun of him and calling it Twitter is… Silly. What’s the end game?
Twitter is dead. Let it go.
You need a better example. Edge was specifically not Internet Explorer. For quite a while, both existed. They were separate programs. Also going to twitter.com still takes you to where you wanna go lol, it just redirects.
I guess you will call Nike Blue Ribbon Sports because they still have blueribbonsports.com, and certainly all the cool kids still say WWF because WWE is stupid, and I remember when everyone refused to call ebay anything but AuctionWeb, and don’t forget how everyone refused to accept that Research In Motion became BlackBerry. Almost forgot how nobody called Apple Music anything but Beats Music, and the SyFy channel will always be SciFi, and Paramount+ is universally rejected as a replacement for CBS All Access… It’s not hard to come up with examples, this happens all the time… lol
It’s a brand, and it changed. It’ll never be Twitter again, it’s the Nazi platform X now, and keeping ownership of the Twitter.com domain name isn’t exactly proof Twitter is still Twitter, so much has been changed about it beyond content moderation and Nazi propaganda distribution, from content access to monetization.
I personally avoid using the Nazi platform, but feel free to continue supporting it while “making fun” of its name change like that’s consequential at all.
Don’t engage with the ideas, downvote and run away. Your precious Twitter needs you to “stand up” to Elon by continuing to use his platform.
Pump the brakes. Never said I support using Twitter. I was just saying you don’t have to “go to x.com” to get there. Which is an argument you used.
That’s the primary domain… Twitter.com forwards to it, you do have to go to x.com, even if your browser is making that process mostly transparent for you.
Do you disagree that it’s not called Twitter anymore? Do you disagree that calling people stupid for calling it x is stupid?
The guy heiled Hitler twice on live tv and people are still using his platform because “it’s still Twitter”… It’s dumb.
I disagree that everyone still calling it Twitter are still using Twitter and doing it as a coping mechanism. Also I thought a couple of other things said weren’t the best for making your point but I already pointed them out.
Where have you pointed them out?
You told me to come up with a better example, I came up with several, and they still of course have the old domains.
If it’s not a coping mechanism, what is it? What is the end game? Enlighten me…
See my first comment here if you’re confused about where I pointed them out.
And the “end game” is just clowning on a dumb thing Musk did. The rebranding specifically. That’s it. It’s not deeper than that.
You’re clowning on it by insisting the name didn’t change? Okay…
I call it x, because that highlights that the dumbass Nazi killed a very valuable brand and changed it to something dumb. I don’t call people who call it x dumb, because that’s its new name. You’re not clowning on Muskrat, you’re clowning on a random person who simply referred to content on the website x (formerly Twitter, because the dumbass Nazi paid out his ass for it to turn it into the Nazi platform X).
…
I said companies change names, you asked for better examples and posited that it’s still Twitter because twitter.com forwards to x.com, I provided several examples of brands changing and keeping the old domain, you deflected and accused me of making the stupid domain argument in the first place, and completely ignored your answered request for better examples.
Weird.
Nobody calling it Twitter is denying that the name changed. You’re seriously overthinking this and making it into something it’s not.
No I didn’t. The only reason I ever mentioned that again was because you seemed to be confused what I was commenting about and when I told you, you asked where I said it.
I think you’re mistaken. Your URL doesn’t even go anywhere. Pretty sure it’s still Twitter?
I know people who are still calling Snickers bars Marathons. Telling people to let it go isn’t going to do you any good, either.
are you ragebaiting or do you really care that we deadname twitter? lmao
nice paragraphs.
They seem to equate people using the name Twitter with ignoring the problems with it post Musk buyout. Which isn’t the case.
Keep sucking fascist dick.
I know this is likely just a typo but it made me lol
Not even close. I just refuse to call that racist fueled rubbish heap Twitter.
Fair point. But I can also see why people don’t want to call it by the name the current owner wants you to use.
You can’t deadname a company.
And as long as that dumb fascist does it to his daughter, even more reason to keep doing it.
I will never let marketing win.
No. I’m just not giving that nazi the satisfaction of using that name that built the site. Why would you?
That’s rich coming from a country with no proper copyright laws & a copyright monster by the name Nintendo
Japan’s copyright law is very similar to the US, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention
That both are copyright monsters which should be ignored as much as possible until they die out.
Disney is even worse than Nintendo.
That’s exactly what he’s referring to lol
I just don’t really understand the point they’re trying to make. Japan is responding to OpenAI, which is a US company. They have the same copyright laws. None of the parties involved have any kind of edge over the other w.r.t. copyright law.
which is why their laws aren’t proper copyright laws, yes
You’re replying to a pizza cutter.
All edge and no point.
Oooooo that’s a really good insult
Come on Japan, what’s a bit of culture for AGI/ASI! Don’t you want to save the planet? /$
This is obviously sarcasm, OpenAI just wants more money, namely the exact OPPOSITE of what it was founded for.
Automated garbage internet
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.wtf/pictrs/image/d4a69570-b4cd-4da3-aefb-d95562af62ef.png">
.
What the actual fuck is this comment?
Anti Japan comment, of course, because they don’t like foreigners anymore
Buddy, they never liked foreigners to begin with. That’s like… Their whole thing.
That doesn’t align with the modern globalism tendencies.
Perhaps we should colonize them and replace them with new people who fit the narrative better.
That’ll teach them to be more considerate of foreigners. Well, those that survive, at least.
booo… pick a psychosis and stick with it
I can’t. I must pick them all
They don’t like foreigners, so let’s wish they were conquered by colonials, because that worked out so well for every other country conquered by colonials.
But if they got replaced by the colonizers, we wouldn’t have xenophobic japanese people anymore.
You’re advocating for the replacement of an entire ethnic group. You know what that’s called, right?
I hope for your sake that you’re being ironic.
The African invaders did that with our denisovan and neanderthal ancestors. We would just be doing the same
“African invaders”, I see you also fail at anthropology. Probably for idealogical reasons, right?
Otherwise you wouldn’t be saying something so monumentally stupid and uneducated.
The out of Africa theory makes them appear as the original colonizers.
I didn’t get anthropology in my third world school
Well, then allow me to educate you:
ALL human species originate from central Africa. Including Neanderthals.
That’s what the current dogmatic science ideas want us to believe.
Something something PsUeDoScIeCe BaD
Ah. You’re a racist, dilusional idiot.
I can abide ignorance, because someone ignorant can be taught. I cannot abide willful ignorance.
I am not racist. I am everything, depending on the mood. I speak against all the echo chambers to pass time at work. It helps with the shit and giggles
Xd I have to somehow survive those 8 hours of slavery every day
I feel like I’m talking to a guy who was deeply offended by the movie Django Unchained.
I mean, look at India. The Modi government will crawl over broken glass to appease their colonial oppressors. Or, at least, they’ll find some of their lowest cast neighbors to do the crawling for them.
It’s the 1980s all over again. Americans conveniently rediscovering how much they hate Japan, the moment they see the country as a global rival rather than a source of cheap labor.
I wasn’t born in that fourth world wasteland that has no workers right.
I’m going to regret asking, but… what do you think the fourth world is? And, what did you think the first three were?
I guess first would be Europe, second would be the old USSR countries, third would be Africa and central/south america and fourth would be the US
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World#%3A~%3Atext=The….
Japan has some of the worst copyright and fair use laws in the world.
Satire is often times considered copy right infringing.
I wouldn’t say they’re worse. I’d say they’re confusing as hell.
For example: fan manga are absolutely okay.
Fan manga and other doujin works usually depends on the original copyright holder for enforcement.
Some are pretty open for any fanworks being commercialized as long it’s limited and case by case basis. For example, Love Live franchise allows doujin manga and other doujinshi works, but not with fanmerch. Serial Experiments Lain generally allows various stuff, but not R18 content. Some others like Yakitate Japan mangaka just happy seing his works have so many adult doujin manga, and even lining up on Comiket buying them.
What’s with the dumb takes at the top of this post?
.
.
Scam Faultman has a face that looks like it’d be a pillowy soft paradise for any brave fist that lands upon it at high speed.
No!
Open AI gets so much free PR. Sora is free for now, and instagram getting flooded with copyright infringing crap is not what an expensive video AI creation is going to be paid for. AI videos are very expensive. There are very few people who will pay for it as an alternative for more expensive CGI. Advertising industry can consider full shift for video. They can avoid rights violations and still do it.
Point though, is that copyright controversies are irrelevant to everything important. There is a utility to it, but its not 60gw of power required market.
Fuck Japanese copyright laws
Fuck all intellectual property.
Monopoly on ideas is though police. Information that is not hidden for personal reasons should always be free.
All of human creativity is recycled from internal interpretations, interpretations from the real world that we live in that is increasingly blocked off with real punishment to conceptual crime.
I guess this is good, though it’s annoying that it’s unique enough to make a headline. This should be completely uncontroversial.
good thing the us would never destroy cultural landmarks in the name of conquest
I think they would
Same country that just gave Nintendo a patent for a generic game idea thay has been in wide use for years. Yeah… this is strictly about profits from their anime industry. Japan is just as much of a capitalist dystopia as the US is. Though if they manage to hurt the AI ‘industry’ - nice, I guess?
ya dont say?