Ebby @ Ebby @lemmy.ssba.com

Posts

1

Comments

600

Joined

2 yr. ago

People don't use VPN to bypass CGNAT, they use it to protect their IP address. The 'ol saying "Don't shit where you eat" applies. Probably worth looking into depending on location.

They do have a proxy service, but it is optional. I have it disabled because my server is faster.

I could see the proxy slipping behind a paywall as that feature has costs, but web accessibility? That's basic function of a video server.

Same here. I don't like some of the recent decisions, but I remember the time I looked at the value and thought "yeah, this is working, valuable, and I can get behind it", and bought the lifetime pass.

And I used the hell out of it! I don't regret supporting the developers at all.

But features like plugins disappear, rolled to in-house teams. They work better, but cost more to maintain.

It's ambitious, and gives developers plenty of work, but I feel the new redesign bit more than they can chew and overran budgets. They may be trying to balance budgets.

Jellyfin certainly took off. Great for them. It just wasn't polished or an option when I set things up way back then.

Same boat here. I chose Plex because the apps were everywhere. Smart TV's, phones, web...

I can switch, no problem. I don't want to have to teach my parents a new app. OMFG!

I can understand new features being behind a fee, but this is putting old, old capabilities behind a paywall. Hmmm...

This with a recent decision to remove watch together sort of eliminates the whole reason I would have tried Plex so many years ago.

I'm a fan of Plex (it's worked for me) and understand the Jellyfin crowd too. I'm worried about who is calling the shots at the moment. They aren't aligning with their users.

Bingo. It absolutely is.

Bummer to see them go, but the movie industry is notorious for screwing over production studios. They stopped being useful or creative teams wanted better pay; cut off life support and find a new crew. This outcome was planned in a meeting ages ago.

Hollywood According

Just pointing out clickbait. They don't even accurately reference their own articles. I stopped reading after that.

We have a vet open up recently that uses calming pheromones throughout and plenty of distractions for pets to make them feel comfortable. A lot of effort was put into pet psychology in the design of the offices.

Representation? That costs extra. Why wouldn't Trumpy & Friends go full Porto Rico on you sap sipping Canucks.

Friendly wave to my buds up north

These devices are almost always listening, and the companies behind them are already collecting our data.

Uh oh! Clicks scary link

The good news is, they aren’t recording all the time ... and when they are activated accidentally, the recordings are typically short.

:/ alrightythen

Plague is a classic. Oldies but goodies.

Next pandemic?

So you guys fix measles yet?

I hope all this BS is just hiding content that can be restored easily when this dumbass is gone.

Thanks to those who archive it though.

Fair use is based on a four-factor analysis that considers the purpose of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount used, and the effect on the market for the original work.

It is ambiguous, and limited, tested on a case-by-case basis which makes this time in Copyright so interesting.

The first article has some good points taken very literally. I see how they arrive at some conclusions. They break it down step by step very well. Copyright is merky as hell, I'll give them that, but the final generated product is what's important in court.

The second paper, while well written, is more of a press piece. But they do touch on one important part relevant to this conversation:

The LCA principles also make the careful and critical distinction between input to train an LLM, and output—which could potentially be infringing if it is substantially similar to an original expressive work.

This is important because a prompt "create a picture of ____ in the style of _____" can absolutely generate output from specific sampled copyright material, which courts have required royalty payments in the past. An LLM can also sample a voice of a voice actor so accurately as to be confused with the real thing. There have been Union strikes over this.

All in all, this is new territory, part of the fun of evolving laws. If you remove the generative part of AI, would that be enough?

Enlighten me. I hope I read it wrong.

It sounds like the EFF is advocating stripping/ignoring copyright information (as is currently done) when generating LLM's to ease burden of small startups tracking down copyright owners. Something I had to do in productions and yeah, it sucked, but it's how it works. (Radio is a tad different)

Wow, EFF. You've been a beacon of light in countless fights, but I did a doubletake on this article. Are you really implying that simply being on the internet is subject to business free-for-all?

I had to have read that wrong. It is absolutely the responsibility of any creative business to track and audit all copyrighted works used in deliverables.

AI, being the business of scooping up massive amounts of data, should absolutely have some sort of metadata log referencing copyrighted works. This is not the burden of small business, but standard practice for AI.

*AI is like reading and should be fair use

No, it certainly is not. Creating a compressed efficient database for search engines to reference and point users is fair use. Using that database to generate new work is not. AI is inherently generative.