Actually the berne convention gives you right to sue in the jurisdiction where your rights are being violated.
Given there is some sort of fair use in most jurisidictions, and its compeltly with in even europeans rights to save entire movies for personal use, the parent comment to you is right. Tools exist for them to enforce them by going after the domain registrar or hosting provider.
All site blocking does is trample on rights over "alleged" infrignment.
>Actually the berne convention gives you right to sue in the jurisdiction where your rights are being violated.
I don't get it, is your claim that the rightsholders can sue in German courts and get an injunction if they want sites blocked, or that site blocks shouldn't be needed at all because suing people (but not blocking the sites) is an adequate remedy for infringement?
> Tools exist for them to enforce them by going after the domain registrar or hosting provider.
What if the domain registrar or hosting provider is in another country? If some Chinese company is infringing on some German company's IP, is your response to tell them to sue them in China, rather than have the goods be blocked at the border?
>Given there is some sort of fair use in most jurisidictions, and its compeltly with in even europeans rights to save entire movies for personal use, the parent comment to you is right.
Unless there's some context that's missing from the article, the sites being blocked seems like they're straightforwardly committing copyright infringement. It's not like youtube-dl is being taken down or whatever. "movie streaming sites are fine because there's a tiny chance that it's used by someone who already owns the movie" seems like a flimsy excuse to allow such sites to continue operating.
>I don't get it, is your claim that the rightsholders can sue in German courts and get an injunction if they want sites blocked, or that site blocks shouldn't be needed at all because suing people (but not blocking the sites) is an adequate remedy for infringement?
Yet your own response seems to imply you do get it?
>What if the domain registrar or hosting provider is in another country? If some Chinese company is infringing on some German company's IP, is your response to tell them to sue them in China, rather than have the goods be blocked at the border?
Correct. As the infrigment is happening in China, not in Germany. Just because you don't like the way a law works, doesn't mean you can suddenly claim your rights are being violated some where else.
>Unless there's some context that's missing from the article, the sites being blocked seems like they're straightforwardly committing copyright infringement. It's not like youtube-dl is being taken down or whatever. "movie streaming sites are fine because there's a tiny chance that it's used by someone who already owns the movie" seems like a flimsy excuse to allow such sites to continue operating.
Yes because a tiny chance of innocence should be completely ignored according to your logic, and given that copyright infringement carries criminal penalties and prison. I hope it's not you who ends up in that situation.
>Yet your own response seems to imply you do get it?
So which one is it?
>Correct. As the infrigment is happening in China, not in Germany. Just because you don't like the way a law works, doesn't mean you can suddenly claim your rights are being violated some where else.
Yet, in most countries you can get an injunction (ie. a "block") for infringing goods produced abroad to be seized at the border. It's within the government's remit to regulate what happens within its own borders, even if the infringing product (or website) is outside its borders.
>Yes because a tiny chance of innocence should be completely ignored according to your logic, and given that these carry criminal penalties and prison. I hope it's not you who ends up in that situation.
Where did "criminal penalties and prison" come from? We're talking about sites that are obviously engaging in copyright infringement. I'm not sure how you went from that to "send everyone with an open plex server to the gulag".
> the sites being blocked seems like they're straightforwardly committing copyright infringement. It's not like youtube-dl is being taken down or whatever.
> Where did "criminal penalties and prison" come from?
I mean, ch.at is a incredible domain hack. But not sure it's worth millions. If it was ch.com could get mid six figures and up. But either way absolutely amazing domain.
I don’t think comparing a LLM to a calculator is necessarily apt. If anything i'd say you can use these LLM's as a reflection of you. If you think Alabama has an R. Then it's not maths fault it tries to find an answer that matches your persistence, especially since I'm sure somewhere in its training set alabamer exists.
Perhaps this is a good analogy, in which case I'd prefer they stop advertising it as a better/faster/cheaper bird. Speaking as a metaphorical bird, it clearly cannot do well what I do. It does do it poorly at a remarkable speed though.
So what is the software development task that this plane excels at? Other than bullshitting one's manager.
Then it's not maths fault it tries to find an answer that matches your persistence, especially since I'm sure somewhere in its training set alabamer exists.
It is not supposed to find an answer that matches my persistence, its supposed to tell the truth or admit that it does not know. And even if there is an alabamer in the training set, that is either something else, not a US state, or a misspelling, in neither case should it end up on the list.
No, it is supposed to find an answer that matches your persistence. That's what it does, and understanding that is the key to understanding its strengths and weaknesses. Otherwise you may just keep drinking the investors' kool-aid and pretend that it's a tool that's supposed to tell the truth. That's not what it does, that's not how it works and it's a safe bet that's not how it's gonna work in foreseeable future.
No, it is supposed to tell the truth and that is what is advertised, matching your persistence is what it sometimes actually does. But people are using it because it sometimes tells the truth, not because it sometimes matches your persistence.
When the marketing tells us it's like talking to a PhD in the relevant field on any topic, it's worth pointing out that's only true if the PhD in question has recently suffered severe head trauma.
This would only apply to businesses in the UK though? Not sure how Ofcom could pursuade a foreign based processor to shut down a legitimate businesses processing within their own jurisdiction, not the UK
"Not sure how Ofcom could pursuade a foreign based processor"
- wasn't it an Australia based (small religious?) organization that persuaded payments processors to block games and content in the US and UK and elsewhere?
I think with anything, it's a love hate. I open sourced https://github.com/nadermx/backgroundremover, and it's been cool in terms of vanity, but depending on my mood it either feels cool or like a chore to do work on it.
"The court held that merely clicking on a download button does not show consent with license terms, if those terms were not conspicuous and if it was not explicit to the consumer that clicking meant agreeing to the license."
I'm not a lawyer but I think even if you offset the legal responsibilities to the user by alerting them with copyrights prompt it's still illegal to download youtube videos.
United States v. Auernheimer, 748 F.3d 525 (3d Cir. 2014). Specifically, on page 12, footnote 5, the court states:
“We also note that in order to be guilty of accessing ‘without authorization, or in excess of authorization’ under New Jersey law, the Government needed to prove that Auernheimer or Spitler circumvented a code- or password-based barrier to access... The account slurper simply accessed the publicly facing portion of the login screen and scraped information that AT&T unintentionally published.”
Given there is some sort of fair use in most jurisidictions, and its compeltly with in even europeans rights to save entire movies for personal use, the parent comment to you is right. Tools exist for them to enforce them by going after the domain registrar or hosting provider.
All site blocking does is trample on rights over "alleged" infrignment.
reply