1·
1 month agoAmongst other things, yes.
Cosmic Cleric
All posts/comments by me are licensed by CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, unless otherwise noted.
- 0 Posts
- 11 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: June 15th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Activision User Research Union-CWA is the first group of video game user researchers to form a union
So what exactly about their users do they research?
Man, this current age of AI really sucks.
From the article …
GNOME sysadmin Bart Piotrowski shared on Mastodon that only about 3.2 percent of requests (2,690 out of 84,056) passed their challenge system, suggesting the vast majority of traffic was automated.
Great to hear! Way overdue. That industry really needs some of those protections.
From the article …
The launch will be formally announced at the 2025 Game Developer Conference in San Francisco, Calif., the world’s largest industry event for video game professionals, where workers will be joined by other CWA members to launch this powerful new organization.
From United States Copyright Office …
Based on an analysis of copyright law and policy, informed by the many thoughtful comments in response to our NOI, the Office makes the following conclusions and recommendations:
• Questions of copyrightability and AI can be resolved pursuant to existing law, without the need for legislative change.
• The use of AI tools to assist rather than stand in for human creativity does not affect the availability of copyright protection for the output.
• Copyright protects the original expression in a work created by a human author, even if the work also includes AI-generated material.
• Copyright does not extend to purely AI-generated material, or material where there is insufficient human control over the expressive elements.
• Whether human contributions to AI-generated outputs are sufficient to constitute authorship must be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
• Based on the functioning of current generally available technology, prompts do not alone provide sufficient control.
• Human authors are entitled to copyright in their works of authorship that are perceptible in AI-generated outputs, as well as the creative selection, coordination, or arrangement of material in the outputs, or creative modifications of the outputs.
• The case has not been made for additional copyright or sui generis protection for AI- generated content.
The Office will continue to monitor technological and legal developments to determine whether any of these conclusions should be revisited. It will also provide ongoing assistance to the public, including through additional registration guidance and an update to the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices.
what’s the particular license about?
These links can explain it better than I could …
By default, everything you write, from a novel to an Internet forum shitpost, is not only copyrighted by you but also “all rights reserved.”
What that guy is doing is (a) making his writings more available for reuse than they would be otherwise, and (b) making a point about how fucked-up it is that corporations treat stuff posted to social media as if it were a free-for-all they could use however they want.
the license is actually a Creative Commons license for Non-Commercial uses. Creative Commons is a copyleft license that’s “free to use with some restrictions”. Mostly used in art, literature, audio, and film, for my part I’m using it to license my comments. Anybody can cite with attribution, but commercial use is forbidden by the license.
The why: I just don’t like non-opensource commercial ventures. Google, Microsoft, Oracle, Facebook, Apple, and so on are harmful in many ways.
Enforcement and legality: Microsoft’s Github CoPilot (a large language model / “AI”) was trained on copyrighted text source code. A few licenses clearly state that derivatives should also be opensource, which CoPilot is not. So there is a big lawsuit against it. Many artists, non-programmer authors, musicians, and others are also unhappy that AI was trained on their copyrighted works and have sued for damages. Until these cases make it out of court, it will not be clear if adding a license to comments could even jeopardize commercial AI vendors.
This link shows that ProPublica also licenses their content here on Lemmy.
I want to license my content to be available to non-profit open-source, and restricted for for-profit.
I understand that its not my responsibility to enforce laws, and that just because laws are not enforced currently that I should still be able to avail myself to them, as well as that enforcement of the laws may not be happen currently, but that enforcement will catch up to the reality on the ground.
Also, that laws trump ToS’s. And “Safe Harbor” laws that corporate social media companies/sites protects themselves with state that we own our content, and not them. And that they (or anyone else) can’t use a ToS to strip away our ownership, and hence, our content licensing. Also, content licenses travel with their licensed content, no matter where the content is copied to.
Forgot to mention, I’m not a Sov Cit. I pay my house taxes, and drivers license fee, and my car registration, etc. I don’t believe in that cause.
Finally, if the license link looks weird, it may be that your app/client does not support Lemmy.World’s formatting text. You would have to speak with the devs of the product you use to view Lemmy to get that corrected.
A mods response to the usage of a license to a third-party.
It’s also just temporary, until a biological donor heart can be found for them.
From the article…
It is powered by an external rechargeable battery that connects to the heart via a wire in the patient’s chest.
The battery lasts four hours and then alerts the patient that a new battery is needed.
That question/point is answered in the link that I supplied above.
There also a comment from a mod in there that you should read.
This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0