1) morally. Alice deserves it because her intention is more pure.
2) financially. Bob gets it, because he can pay more for it than alice.
Which choice above you make as a policy direction is a reflection of your world view. I'm voting for 2), but i can understand the POV of 1), even tho i disagree with it.
You are entirely missing the point. The correct answer is to build 2 houses. The problem with these policies is that they artificially restrict demand. If they didn't do that, nobody would have a problem with them.
I have noticed it while running ~/bin/some_command. The ~ doesn't echo until I also type the /. It doesn't cause any misbehavior because there is no binding for ~/ but can be slightly surprising.
I find it odd that you would have commands in ~/bin but not have it be the highest priority in your PATH. I use ~/.local/bin, but would never type it because i wouldn't have bins that overlap shell commands and no other path would have priority.
Usually, it is. IIRC, this was when I was just setting up my environment on a new host, after I had populated ~/bin but before I restarted my shell to pick up PATH modifications.
The alleged author, when bringing a copyright infringement suit, will submit testimony claiming they wrote it. Parties to the suit will have a chance to present arguments and evidence. Then, the claim will be adjudicated by a judge and/or jury.
I will review a board a dozen times, find no issues, submit it for production, then 5 minutes later discover an obvious bug. Characterize it how you will, the cancellation window has saved my bacon more than once.
Exactly this. You calm down, take a cup of coffee, marvel at your beautiful design, and then spot something out of place. The actual review has saved me a few times too, for example: "are you sure there are no copper layers in your PCB design?" - Doh! A few times they have raised issues regarding the limitations of their manufacturing capabilities, and this too has saved time and cost.
Copyright is positive law created by humans, not natural law that we happen to recognize. The idea that adopted legislation or established caselaw can be wrong about what copyright fundamentally is makes no sense.
Not what I'm saying - if you meet the technical, intentional definition of a process, substantiated by precedent, then the law should support any variation of the process which has those same technical features meeting the definition.
Using AI as a tool to produce output, no matter how complex the underlying tool, should result in the authorship of the output being assigned to the user of the tool.
If autocorrect in Word doesn't nullify copyright, neither should the use of LLMs; manifesting an idea into code and text and images using prompts might have little human input, but the input is still there. And if it's a serious project, into which many hours of revision, back and forth, testing, changing, etc, there should be absolutely no bar to copyright.
I can entertain a dismissal based on specific low effort uses of a tool - something like "generate a 13 chapter novel 240 pages long" and seeing what you get, then attempting to publish the book. But almost anything that involves any additional effort, even specifying the type of novel, or doing multiple drafts, or generating one chapter at a time, would be sufficient human involvement to justify copyright, in my eyes.
There's no good reason to gatekeep copyright like that. It doesn't benefit society, or individuals, it can only benefit those with vast IP hoards and giant corporations, and it's probably fair to say we've all had about enough of that.
That's an opinion you have. But the opinion that matters is that of the judges and the various global copyright offices. And they all agree that if the creative work was all done by the tool, then no copyright applies. You can only copyright the creative work of humans.
How long they will agree this in the face of large media companies' lobbying efforts remains to be seen.
reply