Alternate account: @[email protected]

  • 87 Posts
  • 2.32K Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle












  • What I find funny and I realized it a bunch of years ago: whenever consumers have actual choice of an alternative product and aren’t forced into the Microsoft product because of Microsoft’s monopolies, people tend to pick the competition.

    Windows Phone: consumers chose Android and iPhone.

    Xbox: consumers chose PlayStation and Nintendo.

    Handheld gaming PC: Steam Deck.

    Chat (MSN, Skype,…): WhatsApp and a plethora of alternatives. (Businesses use Teams because of Office monopoly.)

    Edge browser: Chrome.

    WMA: MP3.

    Games shop (Xbox/Microsoft Store): Steam.






  • Do you expect copyright laws to mention every single type of transformative work acceptable? You are being purposely ignorant.

    I asked nicely to provide a quote that machine generation is also covered that you couldn’t provide and now feels the need to lash out.

    And yes, I absolutely expect that machine generation is explicitly mentioned for the simple fact that right now machine generated anything is not copyrightable at all. A computer isn’t smart, a computer isn’t creative. Its output doesn’t pass the threshold of originality, as such there is no creative transformation happening, as there is with reinterpretations of songs.

    What is copyrightable are the works that served as training set, therefore there absolutely has to be an explicit mention somewhere that machine generated works do not simply pass the original copyright into the generated work, just like how a human writes source code and the compiled executable is still the human author’s work.

    Edit: Downvotes instead of arguments. Pathetic.