Welcome to my point: there's no such thing. You always have to go through national courts, and if you hold copyright in several countries, you can pretty much pick and choose the legislature that is most advantageous to your case. Take this recent one: an Icelandic company sued an Icelandic artist for slander... In UK court. The "legal" basis was that the website was hosted on a .co.uk domain, but I'm sure that the strict UK slander laws and astronomical costs of its courts had nothing to do with it. Not a copyright case, I know, but I think it's a good example of how laws and jurisdictions get fundamentally twisted when applied to the Internet. I think anyone can agree that it should've been settled in an Icelandic court.
Yeah, no. The ICJ handles disputes between nations. It has literally nothing to do with copyright. Just take a look at the kind of cases they handle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_International_Court_of_Justice_cases
Because they're getting punished for providing books to people, while OpenAI & friends have been infringing copyright on a much, much bigger scale, and getting away with it. As always, the point isn't author's rights, it's money.
Copyright laws are agreed on at a international level
But every country then implements them in different ways, for example duration and what constitutes "fair use".
There even is a international copyright court
No there isn't. Source?
It's not about breaking the law, what I'm saying is that copyright laws (but actually, any law) just plain doesn't make sense when you try to apply it to the Internet, because the internet is not a national entity, and the nature of its interactions are fundamentally different from anything else that came before it. Because which country's laws should apply when interacting across continents? If I am in country A, and I'm interacting with you, a resident of country B, on a platform that is owned by a company registered in country C, hosting their servers in country D, who should have authority to regulate this interaction? Simply put, I don't give a fuck (pardon my french) about what the US Copyright Office has to say about anything, since I'm not a US citizen nor resident.
Yes, I am aware of what they do. And I am of the opinion that spreading access to knowledge is vastly more important than copyright laws made decades before the internet was a thing. Especially when is comes to US copyright laws being forced upon the rest of the world.
Indeed... IPv6 needs to be actively disabled, not enabled, by default.
Unless your ISP provides IPv6 connectivity, which gives every endpoint a globally-routable address. Firewalling at the router only works because of NAT.
It is absolutely not, but I understand it's easy to lose sense of scale when you go into billions territory.
Uhh.. what? Not saying that those things aren't real today, but are you sure they were the cause of the fall of Rome? lmao
You're always breathing in molecules that were just inside other people when you're in public, even if they're not in a visible cloud.
Which, you know, is fine. Maybe if people had an idea of how much power is required to run them, they would think twice before using a gigawatt to output a poem about farts, and perhaps even wonder how OpenAI can offer that for free. Btw, a 7b model should run ok on any PC with at least 16GB of RAM and a modern processor/GPU.
He's barely coherent because he's Trump, not because he's 78.
How so? Even if it's a no-profit, PBS is still a business. Even though they are operated like one in the US, political parties are not supposed to be businesses.
There is no need for official political merch anyway, it's not a band or a sports team. I don't mind if people or associations make and wear them, bit why does a political party need to sell stuff?