As one European to another, thank you for giving an honest outside-in perspective, downvotes be damned :)

You know I really can’t tell, and as a non-American outsider see that both sides are being extremely alarmist at this moment. Although the main criticism of Harris is that she is more of the same, there are plenty who try to paint her as a radical and dangerous left-winger, when she is nothing of the sort of course. Makes one wonder where the real Donald Trump ends and the caricature begins on the other end of the spectrum.

This is simply what we call polarization in politics, and is very hurtful to any semblance of unity that nationhood requires. America will likely not heal from this for a while, no matter who wins. Unless, whoever wins, delivers on something that matters to everyone, regardless of politics, that is usually something having to do with the cost and quality of life. That tends to placate people, even while their freedoms are being curtailed.

But I do feel that Trump is more symptom than cause. And the article suggests as much as well:

“…rising political antagonism in America is a perennial outgrowth of its defining conflict over race and national identity — with the current round of conflict sparked largely (albeit not entirely) by backlash to Barack Obama’s 2008 victory.”

Got me there

Unfortunately unless you are a tiny niche community that isn’t ever targeted by spam or idiots (and how common is that really), moderators are a necessary evil. You probably don’t hate moderators. You probably hate bad/aggressive/biased/etc moderators. Or maybe sometimes you are the problem, I don’t know. It is not a problem with an easy solution. Usually large forums with no moderation become quickly unbearable to most people. And then moderators become in turn unbearable to some people.

Maybe a trusted AI can do a better job at this - like give it the community rules and ask it to enforce them objectively, transparently, and dispassionately, unless a certain number of participants complain, in which case it can reverse its decision and learn from that.

Hey thanks, both AW1 and Control are games I might pick up again. Didn’t hate them, they just didn’t really hook me.

I found the pacing of the first few chapters in the first Alan Wake sublime, in terms of storytelling. The gameplay frustrated me on the other hand, became quickly monotonous and tedious for me. So I only played like a third of the game, much as I liked the story and was curious to see where it went. Then Control I was left completely unmoved by. So I’ve been hesitating to take up the second Alan Wake, basically because I didn’t much like the first iteration, or Control, which I’ve heard is somehow connected. Maybe I’m missing out. Or maybe these games appeal only to a certain audience.

I guess apple just missed the boat there. I don’t know that they will ever catch up on AI.

Well looks like the great Reddit exodus wasn’t so great after all and Reddit more than made up for it. Financially at least, things are looking up for them. I kinda really wish it weren’t so… but at least some of us got to know Lemmy as a consequence.

Never used this. Never cared for it 🤷🏻‍♂️

What you are saying is you don’t want creators to be able to make a living off their work. Because that is what “professional” means.

Do you use the integrated AI in new versions of Excel or do you ask ChatGPT or some other AI to write it out for you?

Since some commenters on here seemed a little too eager to go with “fuck copyright” and outright dismiss the particular copyright claim the story was about, I thought I’d help make sure they understand that it’s not all bad. Too often have well intentioned people been too quick to dismiss a setup, only to replace it with something worse - or without really having any idea what to replace it with. You seem to understand that copyright serves a useful function in the current market-based economy, warts and all.

It is very difficult to make money in a market economy if you cannot sell the products of your labor. And to be able to do that, you need to have some ownership over said products. Ownership means exclusion, no way around it. Then you can transfer that ownership to an employer in exchange for a salary, or trade in an open market as a freelancer. Or create a collective wherein you share ownership. There are different models, but culture, to an extent, has always been monetized one way or another because creators have always needed to make a living, so they can continue to practice their craft while sustaining themselves and their families.

Copyright abolitionism sounds cool until you’re a professional creator with mouths to feed in this economy.

Of course there are smart ways creators can make money while also waiving their rights under copyright, but this does not work for everyone and many really just need to be able to sell the product of their labor to make a living.

I’m not saying it’s a perfect system, not by a long shot. But there’s no easy solution either.

I understand the sentiment, and you are right, that copyright is an obstacle to some forms of creativity, especially anything that involves direct reuse of somebody else’s work without their consent. It has also enabled a marketplace for content that has, like many other markets over time, led to the concentration of market power in a small number of business concerns, who effectively dominate their fields with extensive content libraries and armies of lawyers and lobbyists to promote their interests.

However, one should still not forget, that if you’re just an independent creator who depends on their creativity to make a living and at some point manages to create something of great value, it is more likely than not that other small or big fish will try to take that and sell it without giving you a penny. And your only recourse will be copyright law. As in this case here. Saying “fuck copyright” without critically engaging with what is actually at stake in a specific case, can lead to a problematic stance where you may find yourself defending grifters against honest creators trying to make a living off their work.

Well if you want an argument based on ‘first principles’, because the photographer actually put work into producing this picture, let alone their knowledge, likely expensive equipment, and hard earned skill to take a truly great shot, whereas you did nothing for it. Unless you are a professional model, but then you probably got compensated for your work as part of a deal.

Now the uses you describe are very different. Some are more casual and non-commercial in nature. Courts will consider such factors in a copyright infringement case.

Now does the above mean you have absolutely no say in what happens to a picture of you taken by someone else? Not exactly, you can also prevent third parties from using the likeness of you for purposes that might be damaging to your dignity or reputation, again, in some jurisdictions, I do not know the details. I am not a lawyer and it was a long time ago I studied these subjects. But basically my point is that the fact that it’s you in the picture may matter to an extent, depending on laws protecting personhood in your country, but not in the way you assumed where every photo of you is yours for the taking.

It is different only in that - in some jurisdictions at least - you can ask for the picture to be taken down or destroyed, and then not if you are a public person appearing in public like Trump is in this case. But that still does not give you the right to use the picture for your own gain without compensating the photographer. Because then you clearly not only have no objections to the picture being taken, but you value that picture, want to use it publicly, commercially even, and again, you owe a debt to the person who took it and in fact depends on people paying for their pictures for their livelihood.

Actually no, when you go to a professional photographer to have your picture taken, you pay for it. Because they put in the work and need to be compensated for it. By that logic people would never have to pay photographers for portraits, weddings, none of that. Just because you’re in a picture doesn’t mean you don’t owe a debt to the person who took it.

Sure, until you become a creative professional and you see someone with a lot more money than you making even more money off your work, and then you might instead say “fuck that guy”!

Much of this looks good. But some of it looks painfully mid/generic. Might still be fun.

Really? The Telegraph? All the while downvoting the poor bot that’s trying to signal that this is a website know for rather poor quality journalism? (to put it mildly)