←back to thread

US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

(www.theregister.com)
451 points croes | 6 comments | 12 May 25 09:49 UTC | HN request time: 1.401s | source | bottom
Show context
prvc ◴[12 May 25 12:28 UTC] No.43962193[source]▶
The released draft report seems merely to be a litany of copyright holder complaints repeated verbatim, with little depth of reasoning to support the conclusions it makes.
replies(4): >>43962324 #>>43962424 #>>43962648 #>>43962893 #
1. flyingcircus3 ◴[12 May 25 15:17 UTC] No.43964010[source]▶
The very fact that you can bring this tired retort to any argument regardless of context reveals it for what it is: an off ramp to any conversation you have no better argument against.
replies(2): >>43964818 #>>43964889 #
2. dylan604 ◴[12 May 25 16:28 UTC] No.43964818[source]▶
It also assumes that the orange man has an original thought and not something that he's been convinced of by all of the direct underlings or even 3rd party NGOs that advise/lobby those underlings.
3. 93po ◴[12 May 25 16:35 UTC] No.43964889[source]▶
People see actions and make assumptions on intentions behind those actions. They also make assumptions on who actually called for those actions, or the percent to which people contributed to those decisions.

If you don't have a tape recorder showing Trump saying "Fire Shira, I don't like what she did and she needs to get out" then you are making assumptions both for his reasons and his involvement. No one has that tape. Which means any claims that this is what happening is entirely speculation. We've seen a decade of people claiming these assumptions as fact, and it's really tiresome.

replies(1): >>43965090 #
4. flyingcircus3 ◴[12 May 25 16:54 UTC] No.43965090{3}[source]▶
Now apply this reasoning to Trump standing in Air Force One and saying that he would bring someone back of the Supreme Court said to. It's on video.
replies(1): >>43966315 #
5. 93po ◴[12 May 25 18:50 UTC] No.43966315{4}[source]▶
I spent 10+ minutes trying to find anything Trump has said on camera about the copyright office, and went through the only video I could find of Trump on air force one in the past week to see any references to this, and saw none.
replies(1): >>43966830 #
6. flyingcircus3 ◴[12 May 25 19:51 UTC] No.43966830{5}[source]▶
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/trump-if-supre...

It's not related to copyright. It is an example of your hypothetical standard required to attribute something to Trump. My point is that even when he is on camera saying something, that does not prevent the post facto rationalizations. Even if he was on tape firing this person, people would rationalize this away too.