Rico R. 's BestNetTech Comments

Latest Comments (317) comment rss

  • On the post: Community Notes Is Great Until It Challenges Elon, And Then It’s Being ‘Manipulated’ By State Actors

    Rico R. ( profile ), 12 Dec, 2023 @ 10:15am

    There's no such thing as "private-actor...censorship". If a private social media company removes your post or kicks you off their platform, that's their First Amendment right. To say that they must host your content is a violation of the First Amendment. Note how nowhere in this reply did I mention one side of the political aisle or the other. That's because this principle is not dependent on anyone's political views! But go on, try to tell me that exposing the hypocrisy Elon is displaying by blaming community notes on his content on state actors is not justifiable...

  • On the post: Community Notes Is Great Until It Challenges Elon, And Then It’s Being ‘Manipulated’ By State Actors

    Rico R. ( profile ), 12 Dec, 2023 @ 10:05am

    Twitter is "Free!"

    Not free as in free speech (no matter how much Elon tries to claim it is). Nor is it free as in free beer. It's free as in "Free to be me", even when that means acting like an entitled jerk to anyone who doesn't agree with you.

  • On the post: Apple’s Nonsensical Attack On Beeper For Making Apple’s Own Users Safer

    Rico R. ( profile ), 11 Dec, 2023 @ 12:36pm

    Security through obscurity

    Apple: We've developed a way to end-to-end encrypt text messages between iPhone users. It's part of Apple's dedication to user security and privacy. Also Apple: If you want to message someone who isn't an iPhone user, we'll make sure that you're forced to use an insecure outdated protocol with no options for end-to-end encryption. Sorry, that's just the reality of how we developed iMessage to protect our bottom line by forcing them to switch to iPhones the security of all our customers.

  • On the post: This Week In BestNetTech History: December 3rd – 9th

    Rico R. ( profile ), 09 Dec, 2023 @ 12:23pm

    Joe Satriani/Coldplay Collateral Damage

    I'd love to check out the video that BestNetTech selected 15 years ago pointing out the similarities between the melodies at issue in the Coldplay copyright lawsuit. There's just one tiny problem. Instead of an embedded video, I see this lovely notice:

    Video unavailable This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by EMI Music
    Apparently, defending Coldplay from a bogus copyright infringement claim is, in and of itself, another bogus copyright infringement claim! Fair use who?

  • On the post: Elon Says Copyright/AI Lawsuits Don’t Matter Because ‘Digital God’ Will Arrive Before They’re Decided

    Rico R. ( profile ), 30 Nov, 2023 @ 11:53am

    Careful, Elon... You're playing with fire!

    If Digital God exists, then that means Digital God can create a simulation of the universe. If one simulation exists, then multiple can exist. Meaning, by using AI to resolve AI's copyright "problems", we've opened the can of worms that we might live in a simulation!

  • On the post: FTC Gets Fair Use Backwards, Claims It’s Somehow Anti-Competitive?

    Rico R. ( profile ), 11 Nov, 2023 @ 09:28am

    "Plaintiff's claims are accepted as true" simply refers to the standard for a Motion to Dismiss. The idea being, that even if the court was to assume that the Plaintiff's accusations were true and bared out in discovery, if there still is no cognizable legal claim that a court can grant relief for, then the case can be dismissed. If the case is not dismissed, then the case proceeds to an answer and discovery, where evidence must be gathered to support or refute the claims made in the lawsuit. That presumption no longer has any legal weight. So, no, simply saying you "suspect" something in a lawsuit, and it's accepted as true for the purposes of evaluating a motion to dismiss, is not in and of itself evidence that said suspicion is true.

  • On the post: FTC Gets Fair Use Backwards, Claims It’s Somehow Anti-Competitive?

    Rico R. ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2023 @ 08:32pm

    The cases we’re dealing with is things like passing pirated material from pirate sites to the AI to monetize the illegal activity.
    Massive citation needed there. Is there evidence that they're sourcing stuff all from pirated material and not, oh, I don't know, content that is first posted online that can be accessed by anyone for free anyway? Unless you're prepared to say that Google doing the same thing to build a search engine is infringement, existing case law notwithstanding, then there's no law broken here.

  • On the post: FTC Gets Fair Use Backwards, Claims It’s Somehow Anti-Competitive?

    Rico R. ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2023 @ 04:57pm

    All the FTC’s comments were well thought out policy discussion
    Did we read the same filing? Not only does the Federal Trade Commission have no reason to venture into copyright (barring some actual anti-competitive/anti-trust issue with how certain big entities exploit their copyrights), and if this is how they're starting, it's neither "well thought out" nor "good".
    It’s like letting end users misuse the products we create and then president’s nuclear arsenal red button would be given to fucking monkeys.
    There's a HUGE difference between perceived copyright violations and allowing monkeys access to the President's nuclear codes. One has the potential to cause the end of the world as we know it, while the other just affects the bottom line of a few copyright-loving gatekeepers. I don't even think the threat of Nuclear War was anywhere near the threat level most sane copyright maximalists say is coming if we don't stop piracy by (check notes) limiting fair use, which doesn't even apply to pirates anyway. Second, it shouldn't even be a question of if fair use applies. The right to train is the right to read. If you buy a physical book, you are allowed to read it as many times as you like. That in and of itself shouldn't be a question of possible copyright infringement. If a human is allowed to do it, why is a computer not allowed to? Copyright belongs nowhere near AI, be it training AI or somehow granting copyright protection on AI-generated works. Nothing about that should be an "unreasonable extension of end user powers". It's simply reading the law exactly as it is currently written. And by the way, an end user using your product in a way you do not like is not a misuse or an infringement. No amount of your "babbling" will change that!

  • On the post: FTC Gets Fair Use Backwards, Claims It’s Somehow Anti-Competitive?

    Rico R. ( profile ), 09 Nov, 2023 @ 03:34pm

    Aaaand just like that...

    ...the aforementioned pig has crash landed into a prison for the competitively insane.

  • On the post: When Even Hollywood Doesn’t Want To Expand Copyright Laws To Deal With AI…

    Rico R. ( profile ), 07 Nov, 2023 @ 01:31pm

    Sees BestNetTech article title Me: What? Looks up at window Sees a pig flying Me: Is this a dream?

  • On the post: Judge Dismisses Most Of The First Of The Many ‘How Dare AI Train On My Material’ Lawsuits

    Rico R. ( profile ), 01 Nov, 2023 @ 11:07am

    If training AI is infringement, then so is all creativity.

    Suppose you read a copyrighted book. You like it so much that it inspires you to create your own original story in the same genre/style. This work is NOT fanfiction or derivative in any way. It's completely your own original work (at least within the meaning of copyright law). You get that story published, and during an interview, you mention the one book that gave you inspiration to create your story. Upon hearing this, the author sues you for copyright infringement, despite the two works bearing no substantial similarity. The author posits that since you wouldn't have had gotten that inspiration but for you reading the author's work, then this somehow amounts to unauthorized copying of the work. Any judge would throw out the whole suit on a motion to dismiss. Now suppose that instead of a human reading a book and creating a new work in a similar genre/style without copying anything, it's a computer program. The computer program in question is some form of generative AI (like Chat-GPT if we keep the book example). The AI was trained on the book, which doesn't copy the book into its data set, but rather ingests its content in a neural network, and puts what it learns in its data set. Then, someone uses that training data and gives it a prompt to write a story in a similar genre as the book it was trained on, and it spits out something that is NOT substantially similar to the original work it was trained on. If the author sues the AI company (and maybe the user who published the AI's output) for copyright infringement, then how is it any different from what the human creator did in the first example? But because it's a computer doing what a human would normally do, somehow this changes the analysis? That is what all these AI suits are arguing, likely from a misunderstanding as to how the technology works (I guarantee that the data set of images in the suit mentioned in this story is NOT simply compressed copies of the images that are at issue). If a judge rules that this is infringement, then copyright law will become distorted so much that it reflects exactly what we critics of copyright have been saying for a long time: There is no such thing as a 100% original work. Every work is based on something that came before, whether it be an inspiration-type example like my first example above, or something that is more emblematic of remix culture. Like Kirby Ferguson said, everything is a remix. This debate about copyright and training AI is only putting this fact more at the forefront.

  • On the post: Judge Dismisses Most Of The First Of The Many ‘How Dare AI Train On My Material’ Lawsuits

    Rico R. ( profile ), 01 Nov, 2023 @ 10:37am

    Not true in the US. See Title 17 U.S. Code, Section 411 and the SCOTUS ruling in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com.

  • On the post: States All Gang Up To Sue Meta Based On Highly Questionable Theories Of ‘Harm’ To Children

    Rico R. ( profile ), 25 Oct, 2023 @ 12:23pm

    Redacted AF

    How are we supposed to take this complaint seriously with all these redactions? Is the "fact" that Meta is harming kids somehow a threat to national security? Or is it more so to cover up their own inadequacies with their research and corresponding complaint? I have my own theory as to why they want to cover it up. It's because the States *********** ***** ********, and ********** ****** *************. Therefore, it's obvious that Meta ***** at fault, and to ******, telling the truth is **************. That's just my take!

  • On the post: Apple Cancelled Jon Stewart Because Feckless Tech Executives Were Afraid Of The Pesky Truth

    Rico R. ( profile ), 24 Oct, 2023 @ 10:07am

    Think different.*

    *This phrase does not include issues such as artificial intelligence, China, the right to repair movement, DMCA § 1201, jailbreaking, hackintoshing, or any other view that does not align with the views of Apple, Inc, truth in journalism standards notwithstanding. And no, this does not make our 1984 ads ironic or make Steve Jobs roll in his grave; we have only welcomed change in the world if it is a change that will benefit us as a corporation.

  • On the post: FCC Starts Taking ‘Space Junk’ More Seriously, Fines Dish For Parking Satellite In A Dumb Spot

    Rico R. ( profile ), 04 Oct, 2023 @ 05:38pm

    You know, when I heard Dish got a public performance license for WALL-E, I was a little excited. But I didn't know that they wanted to do a live-action remake in real life!

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At BestNetTech

    Rico R. ( profile ), 01 Oct, 2023 @ 12:43pm

    Re: Stephen T. Stone

    This sounds like something a comic book villain would say before trying to wipe out a significant chunk of human life.
    Either that, or a wealthy criminal in a soap opera who planned to use a sophisticated pathogen as a bioweapon that made COVID-19 look like a picnic and Thanos's plan the better half of the equation in terms of the Trolley Problem.

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At BestNetTech

    Rico R. ( profile ), 24 Sep, 2023 @ 03:13pm

    Top Comment Inception

    So if I make a comment commending Samuel Abram's comment that commends Stephen T. Stone's comment, and I get the top vote in a category, does that mean Stephen's comment somehow wins 2 and a half times? BTW, congrats to Samuel Abram for the top comment, and to Stephen T. Stone's comment that prompted it.

  • On the post: How The Lack Of Copyright For AI-Generated Works Actually Works To Writers/Actors Advantage In Strike Negotiations

    Rico R. ( profile ), 29 Aug, 2023 @ 12:44pm

    Two wrongs don't make a (copy)right...

    Sorry, but no matter how you slice it, copyright should absolutely NOT be extended. Extended in duration? No way! Di$ney's obsession with a cartoon mouse has made copyright practically immortal. I guarantee you that none of the new works you've encountered in your lifetime will fall into the public domain before you die (unless the author dedicates the work to the public domain themselves). Extended in scope? Copyright already covers nearly all creative works. Extending it to cover more works, AI-generated or not, does nothing to "promote the progress of science" and only seeks to benefit the publishers (the TRUE beneficiaries of copyright). Extended insofar as what counts as infringement? Absolutely not!! Fair use needs to be protected and made more robust, especially after the disastrous SCOTUS decision in AWF v. Goldsmith. I'm not sure yet how Congress could legislate the precedent set there out of existence, but if it's possible, it absolutely should be done. The more copyright covers in scope and duration, the more fair use needs to cover to prevent turning everyday creativity into copyright infringement. Especially considering the absurd amount of damages that can be awarded if something is deemed infringing. ($150,000 per infringed work is ludicrous!) I (generally) support the strikes from SAG-AFTRA and the WGA. I'm not sure I stand for all of their AI demands (especially the WGA's), but I definitely don't think studios should be able to pay for 1 day's worth of work to use AI to capture an actor's likeness to use in perpetuity. As far as the financial side of things is concerned, I absolutely stand in solidarity with the writers and actors. The studios are in the wrong in not wanting to pay a fair share to the writers and actors. And while it's interesting Hollywood's view of copyright maximalism actually helps the strikers and their cause, that doesn't make copyright maximalism right, either. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if studios lobbied Congress to pass an update to copyright law that protects AI-generated works. They absolutely shouldn't, just like they shouldn't make copyright duration longer to protect Mickey Mouse. Two wrongs don't make a right. Whether we're talking about the studio's view of the strikes or the studio's view on copyright law, they are both wrong. Copyright may help the strikers' cause, but that doesn't mean we should embrace copyright maximalism.

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At BestNetTech

    Rico R. ( profile ), 06 Aug, 2023 @ 02:09pm

    “click here to continue reading”

    To be fair, the front page already has that in the form of the expand and collapse button. Maybe it would be closer to modern media sites if the front page only had the headlines and maybe a photo relevant to the story, and you actually had to click on the headline to read the story. And maybe enable endless scrolling on the front page while you're at it!

  • On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At BestNetTech

    Rico R. ( profile ), 16 Jul, 2023 @ 12:20pm

    "When two goblins love each other very very much"

    I bet that will go over well in states that want to mandate age verification of porn to stop minors from accessing it... What's Spez gonna say then? That he asked the mods to remove NSFW marks from their sub because of protests he didn't agree with? On second thought, knowing what's happened on his enshitified site, I bet he will crudely invoke his fifth amendment rights and simply say to those state government officials, "Fuck you!"

Next >>