kevincox @ kevincox @lemmy.ml

https://kevincox.ca/

---

Read more

Posts

6

Comments

809

Joined

5 yr. ago

Moderating

---

There is no concrete difference between the two options. But in general they will be similar. I think you are talking about these options:

 rust

    
struct Person;
struct Skill;

struct PersonSkills {
    person: PersonId,
    skill: SkillId,
}

  

vs

 rust

    
struct Person {
    skills: SkillId[],
}

struct Skill;

  

The main difference that I see is that there is a natural place to put data about this relationship with the "join table".

 rust

    
struct PersonSkills {
    person: PersonId,
    skill: SkillId,
    acquired: Timestamp,
    experience: Duration,
}

  

You can still do this at in the second one, but you notice that you are basically heading towards an interleaved join table.

 rust

    
struct PersonSkills {
    skill: SkillId,
    acquired: Timestamp,
    experience: Duration,
}

struct Person {
    skills: PersonSkills[],
}

  

There are other less abstract concerns. Such as performance (are you always loading the list of skills, what if it is long) or correctness (if you delete a Person do you want to delete these relationships, it comes "for free" if they are stored on the Person) But which is better will depend on your use case.

Yup. I would try to stop using it if at all possible. As soon as you can, dump a full disk image to some other storage. Tools like ddrescue can be useful as they will try to re-read failed sectors to get a more complete image.

Once you have the data (or at least as much is available) to a reliable medium then you can start sorting through it and discarding or saving individual bits.

Prices won't change overnight, even a year is pretty fast. These are large assets and most sellers would rather wait a bit than risk selling in a short stall. Some sellers are also very emotional and think they know what it is worth.

But if the supply is increasing the prices should start to drop.

Are you a lawyer?

I am not. Are you?

Including a link to a Creative Commons license in a comment footer will not do that.

It is when you give it a different name which doesn't reflect the actual behaviour of the license.

Ok. So you should probably frame your license like that. Instead of saying "Anti Commercial-AI license" say "Pro Non-commercial-AI license".

I think that is the better case. That is just NPM aggregating the metadata. There are lots of packages that print their own ad.

No, it is more. You aren't restricting anything, it is just a superset of uses. If you want to explicitly license your comments for wider use that is fine, but don't misrepresent it as "Anti Commercial-AI". Just frame it as licensed for non-commercial use.

Pasting a copypasta is probably actually copyright infringement. Same with memes.

The thing about copyright is that it really only matters if you choose to enforce your protection. Presumably the owners of the copypasta don't care enough and the owners of the memes think it brings more popularity to the movie than any licensing costs they could possibly gain from selling the stills.

(Some memes may be considered transformative enough to be fair use, but some of them almost certainly are not.)

Video game streaming is a clear example of this. Almost certainly live-streaming or doing full gameplay videos are infringing the game owner's copyright. The work is often commercial, is often a replacement for the original (at least for some people) and very rarely transformative. But most game publishers think that it is worth it for the advertising. So they don't enforce their copyright. Many publishers will explicitly grant licenses for streaming their games. A few publishers will enforce their copyright and take down videos, they are likely well within their rights.

Tom Scott has a fairly good overview of basic copyright knowledge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU

I don't know if I would say the internet is opposed to copyright. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding and a lot of not caring. If the average internet commenter posts a meme it is of such minuscule cost to the owner of that work that it doesn't make sense to go after them. So it sort of just happens. This makes people think that it is allowed, even if it probably isn't. Most people would probably also agree that this is morally ok. But I don't think that means that they are against copyright in general. I think if you asked most people. "Should I be allowed to download a CGP Grey video and reupload it for my own profit" they would say no. Probably similar for "Should I be allowed to sell cracked copies of Celeste for half price".

I should add that there is one approach that could be taken here. Take this with a huge grain of salt because I am not a lawyer.

When you are posting on Lemmy you are likely granting an implicit license to Lemmy server operators to distribute your work. Basically because you understand that posting a public comment on Lemmy will make it available on your and other Lemmy servers it is assumed that it is ok to do that.

In other words you can't write a story, post it on Lemmy, then sue every Lemmy instance that federated the comment and made it publicly available. That would be ridiculous.

There is a possible legal argument that twists this implicit grant to include AI training. Maybe you could have a disclaimer that this wasn't the case. I don't know how you would need to word this and if it would actually change anything. But I would talk to a lawyer.

It doesn't work.

By default you have complete ownership of all works you create. What that license link is doing is granting an additional license to the comment. (In this case likely the only available license.)

This means that people can choose to use the terms in this license rather than their "default" rights to the work (such as fair use which is which most AI companies are claiming). It can't take away any of their default privileges.

Because you are effectively spreading misinformation.

Your behaviour leads people to believe that in order for their comments not to be used for commercial AI training they need to have a signature. But that isn't true, at most the signature is allowing more uses of your comment, not restricting anything.

People already struggle to understand copyright. Adding more confusion is doing everyone reading your license a disservice.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Congress is getting lobbied for new laws on who owns the content that AI models are being trained from

Training AI from something definitely can't change who owns that thing. This is ridiculous and I'm pretty sure isn't being considered.

If I let AI watch Frozen does that change who owns it? No Disney still does.

who has to pay who for the privledge of using that data

IIUC most of the laws talk about if AI training is "fair use". If it is fair use copyright protections don't apply. But granting a license to your work won't change that.

The only thing I could see potentially being done would be changing the default copyright protections to allowed a revocable default grant for AI training. But it isn't even clear if granting a new license would implicitly revoke that default grant. It also seems unlikely that this is the way the law would work.

Yes. However whether or not it has protections under copyright is not always clear. Likely your comment is too short and simple to be protected. But if it can't be protected claiming to grant a license to that work doesn't change it.

Basically by adding this note they are effectively granting a license to the work. There is no situation in which granting a license can restrict how a work (which is effectively maximum protection).

You don't need to license each of your comments. By default you retain all ownership. So you applying a license is strictly allowing more use. Basically if AI training was not allowed due to copyright than they can't use any comment by default. If AI training is fair-use (which seems to be most companies' claim) then it is irrelevant how you have licensed the comment.

In no situation does granting an additional license to a work restrict the ways in which works can be used under other licenses.

Because people don't understand how copyright works.

In most countries any copyrightable work that you produce is automatically covered by copyright. You don't need to do anything additional to gain that protection.

Most Lemmy instances don't have any sort of licensing grant in their terms of service. So that means that the original author maintains all ownership of their work.

So technically what these people are doing is granting a license to their comment that allows it to be used for more than would otherwise be allowed by the default copyright protections.

What they are probably trying to accomplish is to revoke the ability for commercial enterprises to use their comments. However that is already the default state so it is pretty irrelevant. Basically any company that cares about copyright and thinks that what they are doing isn't allowed as fair use already wouldn't be able to use their comments without the license note. So by adding the license note all they are doing is allowing non-commercial AI to scrape it (which is probably not what was intended). Of course most AI scraping companies don't care about copyright or think that their use is not protected under copyright. So it is again irrelevant.

This announcement is just downloads which will continue to be available anonymously.

I think we as a society need to be a bit less sensitive about gifts. I think it is fine to not like a gift. What matters is that they thought of you to get something. Sometimes it won't land. It is better to admit that (if necessary) than hide it forever. It isn't my responsibility to love and care for a give that you give me.

I get you something I don't want it wasting space in your house just because you are afraid I will be offended. That is like the worst outcome of a gift, I don't want to be giving you a burden.

So if the kid is no longer interested in the toy I think it is fine to give it away or otherwise get rid of it. If the person is offended they should chill the fuck out.

Amex and credit cards in general are a tax on our society, especially the poor. The wealthy get "rewards" which just come from increased prices to cover the high credit card fees. The less wealthy don't get as much of the extra fees back as rewards but still have to pay the higher prices.

We should strictly regulate credit card fees like the EU has done.

Capitalism depends on proper competition to function "properly". So of course the goal of every company is to reduce competition so that they can raise prices to infinity.

Loblaw's still has competition, but it is not what it should be. There are a small number of big chains that don't have proper competition in their best interests. If you live in a big city you likely have a few real options but often not really.

The capitalist's answer to this is applying regulation since it has been required to prevent monopolistic behaviour. Or we can ditch capitalism as the model for our society. Or more likely both, one as a short term fix and another for the longer term.

Have you tried installing any packages from NPM recently?