Oh yeah - you’re talking about that cabal of elites who prey on small children in the basement of a pizza restaurant right (it sounds stupid when he said it and it sounds stupid when you said it).

Talk to a lawyer and ask how long you can prolong a parking ticket if you happen to have a few million in the bank - let alone one of the most complicated conspiracies of lying to the federal govt the country has ever seen.

I’m not sure its a sure thing for adobe (the established company) that this newer company is infringing per se. You need to do business with the trademark to ‘use’ the mark - the caption makes it sound like they will change their mark before doing any business? On the other hand, advertising counts as doing business where the mark is associated but that can get a bit tricky…

If we assume this is not an advertisement, then it’s just like anyone else scribbling down the logo of another company on a sheet of paper and saying I made a thing

Indeed, I posted this on another thread about the court

Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Smith Adams, September 11, 1804, “but the opinion [Marbury v Madison] which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature & executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch.”

It’s right on the courts’ info page

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about

Although the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, it permits Congress to decide how to organize it. Congress first exercised this power in the Judiciary Act of 1789. This Act created a Supreme Court with six justices.

I absolutely agree with the second half, guided by Ian Kerr’s paper “Death of the AI Author”; quoting from the abstract:

Claims of AI authorship depend on a romanticized conception of both authorship and AI, and simply do not make sense in terms of the realities of the world in which the problem exists. Those realities should push us past bare doctrinal or utilitarian considerations about what an author must do. Instead, they demand an ontological consideration of what an author must be.

I think the part courts will struggle with is if this ‘thing’ is not an author of the works then it can’t infringe either?

The thing is these models aren’t aiming to re-create the work of any single authors, but merely to put words in the right order. Imo, If we allow authors to copyright the order of their words instead of their whole original creations then we are actually reducing the threshold for copyright protection and (again imo) increasing the number of acts that would be determined to be copyright protected

https://mylemmy.win/post/89871

Any instance admin, proper or rogue, gets a ton of information that users won’t normally see.

Your right, but OP was incorrect in using the word policing when the Act passed by congress actually uses the words “domestic” law enforcement; (imo) arguably this includes any action that stems from edit: ACTING enforcing laws on domestic, as opposed to foreign, soil. Further the exceptions allow for military to “provide” resources that support domestic enforcement officer which (again imo) would not extend to ‘not providing/actually removing’ resources that domestic enforcement officers do already have…

All that to say what the act does do is create a grey area that can be argued either way and which does force the federal government to have to think twice about using the military for such matters… for better or for worse

Edit for clarity

Yes - same way Trump couldn’t send in the military and had to rely on states’ national guards to clear protesters before that infamous photo-op in front of the church

I’ve always had the opinion that anyone who can’t handle those being free to love who they want must have repressed feelings - I don’t see why that should apply any different depending on what country you live or whether you grew up in a society where the first repressed person made the original rule

For .ca specifically: as long as you are a Canadian individual, or have a sufficient connection to Canada, or a Corp with a trademark registered in Canada then you are qualified to own that domain - but as to who is really checking I have no idea… CIRA complainants maybe?

Here’s some info about .world domains https://support.google.com/domains/answer/6300841?hl=en#zippy=%2Cterms-restrictions

Lol so one could say they fucked around and have now found out (yes I realize that was a sarcastic answer)

It’s not so much a matter of whether the service would work or not but whether the corporate directors would be exposed to criminal liability for continuing to provide such services without OFCOM being able to “understand” the encrypted messages: see 99(4) of the Bill

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137

Hey stop criticizing the military industrial complex - can’t you see this is a circlejerk for capital-d Democrats /s…

If you zoom in enough you’ll see it was actually written into the speech as “uRbAn”

Nah that would have made too much sense - you need to click on just the right in-text hyperlink to find it

Fwiw https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4104701-biden-shares-video-of-marjorie-taylor-greene-speech-to-promote-his-agenda/

TIL about Italy’s shunning of their past in contrast to the “collective guilt” felt by Germans after WWII

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italiani_brava_gente

Italians embrace their cultural and gastronomic exports while shunning certain parts of their history - I wouldn’t say that’s racist… In fact I would call that humanizing

I wonder what their response would be to a bunch of lemmings outside the reach of Germany’s laws doing the same?

Ouff, seems like that word is tainted now (I assume you were using it to describe the courts corruption and not some perceived corruption on the part of Dems)