"It is no exaggeration to say that Anthropic’s model seeks to profit from strip-mining the human expression and ingenuity behind each one of those works. Humans who learn from books buy lawful copies of them, or borrow them from libraries that buy them, providing at least some measure of compensation to authors and creators." ~ From the anthropic lawsuit
Hym "OR they learn from YouTube! And literally invented the method by which LLMs came about because they are a fucking GENIUS! And because I'm surrounded by hollow abominations that simulate sentience, they get away with it! My copyright is the cardinal copyright! Yet here I sit. With fluid in my brainz. Being denigrated by the absolute lost filth- not even in society but IMAGINABLE. If I had to choose... Between living among 9 billion Jewish Hilter Progressives... And the current reality I inhabit... It wouldn't even be a contest. I would choose Jewish Hilter Progressive world because I would at least GAIN THE BENEFIT of a conflict free ideologically homogeneous world. Jewish Hilter Progressive world would be an improvement. But it would be fundamentally the same in all other aspects of life. I would still be surrounded by people who think they are better than me. They would be just as annoying. It would be an upgrade."
by Hym Iam August 21, 2024
Get the Copyrightmug. person 1: i watch movies i downloaded off a torrent
person 2: stop doing that, thats illegal
person 1: stop being such a Copyright Police
person 2: stop doing that, thats illegal
person 1: stop being such a Copyright Police
by The Computer Nerd April 3, 2019
Get the Copyright Policemug. 1: The individual right of authors and inventors to exclusively control creations for a time authorized in the 1787 constitution though the term copyright was not used in the Constitution.
2. The statutory ritual or rite said to be authorized by the copyright Act of 1790 to allow purchasing of the right to exclusively choose publishers for a time. This definition was used to subvert the rights of authors in the United States in 1790 but protected the rights of authors in England in 1711.
3. The fundamental right to control creations recognized in Roe v Wade will be first recognized in the United States in Neeley v FCC, et al, (5:12-cv-5074).
2. The statutory ritual or rite said to be authorized by the copyright Act of 1790 to allow purchasing of the right to exclusively choose publishers for a time. This definition was used to subvert the rights of authors in the United States in 1790 but protected the rights of authors in England in 1711.
3. The fundamental right to control creations recognized in Roe v Wade will be first recognized in the United States in Neeley v FCC, et al, (5:12-cv-5074).
1. Copyright was a new term used in print in 1711 in England that was not used in the 1787 Constitution though corporate sponsorship was regulated soon thereafter by the Copyright Act of 1790.
2. Copies of artwork are not allowed in violation of the rules established in the ritual that approximates a right. e.g. copyrite
3. The right to create copies of creation without harming another's rights will finally become copyright instead of copyrite.
2. Copies of artwork are not allowed in violation of the rules established in the ritual that approximates a right. e.g. copyrite
3. The right to create copies of creation without harming another's rights will finally become copyright instead of copyrite.
by CN Foundation August 19, 2012
Get the copyrightmug. The reason your youtube video was taken down. 3 seconds of a copyrighted song? Taken down. An edited version of a small clip of a copyrighted video or movie? Taken down.
Nobody likes it.
Nobody likes it.
person 1: my video got copyright striked for 3 seconds of a song
person 2: sometimes copyright is garbage
person 1: yes
person 2: sometimes copyright is garbage
person 1: yes
by axolotldoesstuff_0 February 9, 2022
Get the copyrightmug. A state of being caused by the digitisation of society. Basically, nobody knows when they may use online images and videos. So they use it. And get sued. Cue chaos.
by Typist Type November 6, 2018
Get the Copyright Confusionmug. "Where (YouTube) merely assists an author in the creative process, its use does not change the copyrightability of the output,"
"Where a human inputs their own copyrightable work and that work is perceptible in the output, they will be the author of at least that portion of the output,"
From an "Ars Technica" article about the copyrightability of art as it relates to AI but I think it applies nicely here.
"Where a human inputs their own copyrightable work and that work is perceptible in the output, they will be the author of at least that portion of the output,"
From an "Ars Technica" article about the copyrightability of art as it relates to AI but I think it applies nicely here.
Hym "And what part of 'Using the existing architecture of narrative-interpreting AI in conjunction with a massive data set and a sophisticated compression algorithm (specifically to cut down on the energy cost)' is imperceptible? That's me. That is the 'they will be the author of AT LEAST that portion of the output. THAT is all that is happening here. The YouTube panhandlers wanted to get me for copyright infringement BUT THEY COULDN'T ESTABLISH INTENT. So they decided to engage in this retaliatory and deliberate and for profit copyright infringement campaign. For the YouTube freaks, the retaliatory nature of the act IS the expression of intent. It's cut and dry. It's no intent vs intent. Full forfeiture and restitution! They are also doing it for ideological reason which is a violation of my first amendment rights! Make the jew news pay for burying the story!"
by Hym Iam January 31, 2025
Get the Copyrightmug. by PhoneGuyYT April 22, 2025
Get the three copyright strikesmug.