What definitions are in universal use?

No definition is in universal use.

meant to say gender when he said sex

He meant to say exactly what he said, and it was incorrect. He was not using your definition of sex. He was using it in the same sense as “I had a sex change operation”.

Or “Now I want to change the sex on my birth certificate”. Do you also chime in to inform people it’s wrong to do that?

Your definitions of sex and gender are not in universal use, and they are not the definitions used by Sunak. So his statement was not “correct”, because what it meant was not correct.

it’s something you mostly see among the poor.

It is, until it isn’t.

And when it isn’t, we should all cheer.

What a weird take. Nobody is punishing people who smoke.

I see what you did there…

Nothing is infinite. But fresh water is renewable, which means it can be used sustainably.

What did the US gain in Vietnam?

What did the USSR gain in Afghanistan?

Superpowers have a long history of leaving quagmires with their tails tucked between their legs.

The USSR and the US both backed down in Afghanistan, gaining nothing.

The US also backed down in Vietnam, gaining nothing.

Ukraine is Russia’s Vietnam. They will leave Ukraine when they realize they will never gain anything by staying.

We already have a hostile response, so the golden bridge is no longer useful.

This was a civil fraud case so incarceration is not on the table. Just huge fines and the end of his company.

Jail is still possible after future trials though.

Well, there is definitely an anti-assassination sentiment. Probably why Saudi Arabia doesn’t get much love either.

“Very” unique indicates being unique in more ways and/or in more severe ways.

The term you’re looking for is “very unusual”.

Similarly, being “very pregnant”

LOL, ok now say to a pregnant woman, “I don’t think you’re very pregnant”. Please report back to us with her response.

I didn’t downvote, but nothing is “very unique” for the same reason that nobody is “very pregnant”.

Either it is unique or it is not.

They are fine with their jobs because they have other jobs that pay them.

Your idea would mean the end of professional musicians. Music performance would be mainly for people with lots of leisure time, something rich people would do as a hobby. Like playing polo.

If your job stopped paying you, and told you to rely on donations from your clients/customers, then I’m pretty sure you’d find a different job.

In the movie industry, everyone usually signs a work for hire contract that specifies who will have the rights to the completed film.

However, in a recent case the director (Alex Merkin) did not sign a contract and then tried to claim copyright afterwards. The court said that directors have no inherent copyright over film:

We answer that question in the negative on the facts of the present case, finding that the Copyright Actʹs terms, structure, and history support the conclusion that Merkinʹs contributions to the film do not themselves constitute a ʺwork of authorshipʺ amenable to copyright protection. … As a general rule, the author is the party who actually creates the work, that is, the person who translates an idea into a fixed, tangible expression entitled to copyright protection. … But a directorʹs contribution to an integrated ʺwork of authorshipʺ such as a film is not itself a ʺwork of authorshipʺ subject to its own copyright protection.

So you believe that if you download an mp3 and claim you are “analyzing” it, then you can’t be liable for IP infringement?

Wow, I wonder why the Napster defendants never thought of that. They could have saved tens of thousands of dollars.

Simple question:

If you are college student, learning to write professionally, is it fair use to download copyrighted books from Z-Library in order to become a better writer? If you are a musician, is it fair use to download mp3s from The Pirate Bay in order to learn about musical styles? How about film students, can they torrent Disney movies as part of their education?

I’m certain that every court in the US would rule that this is not fair use. It’s not fair use even if pirated content ultimately teaches a student how to create original, groundbreaking works of writing, music, and film.

Simply being a student does not give someone free pass to pirate content. The same is true of training an AI, and there are already reports that pirated material is in the openAI training set.

If openAI could claim fair use, then almost by definition The Pirate Bay could claim fair use too.

Again, it’s not a question of reproducing books in an LLM. The allegation is that the openAI developers downloaded books illegally to train their AI.

You need to pay for your copy of a book. That’s true if you are a student teaching yourself to write, and it’s also true if you are an AI developer training an AI to write. In the latter case, you might also need to pay for a special license.

Is it possible that the openAI developers can bring the receipts showing they paid for each and every book and/or license they needed to train their AI? Sure, it’s possible. If so, the lawyers who brought the suit would look pretty silly for not even bother to check.

But openAI used a whole lot of books, which cost a whole lot of money. So I wouldn’t hold my breath.

the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and the effect of the use upon the potential market.

Yes, and I named three of those factors:

the key questions are often whether the use of the work (a) is commercial, or (b) may substitute for the original work. Furthermore, the amount of the work copied is also considered.

And while you don’t need to meet all the criteria, the odds are pretty long when you fail three of the four (commercial nature, copying complete work rather than a portion, and negative effect on the market for the original).

Think of it this way: if it were legal to download books in order to train an AI, then it would also be legal to download books in order to train a human student. After all, why would a human have fewer rights than an AI?

Do you really think courts are going to decide that it’s ok to download books from The Pirate Bay or Z-Library, provided they are being read by the next generation of writers?