thebadspace has no real rhyme or reason either and lists a lot of folks I think are fine, and also gives (almost) no reason or receipts.
nsrxn
joined 3 months ago
the Lemmy block system works as intended. if you want some other system, use some other service. but being a federated system, you can't actually stop the data from being visible, or someone from creating a new user and interacting, if your post is public.
stealing others' work
Reuters still has their analysis. nothing was stolen.
Whether you support IP or not, the AI company is clearly in the wrong here.
they're both wrong to restrict access. if legal analysis is necessary to understand the law, then restricting access to that analysis, or it's free dissemination, is also wrong.
I don't trust that judge's ability to determine whether they were copied if it wasn't verbatim. which is what copyright is. to control an idea, you need a patent.
tragic. no one should need to pay to read the law
right. I just thought they'd made the news today or something.
you don't seem to know what plagiarism is, so I don't see the point in continuing this conversation.
if I plagiarize The Bible, that has nothing to do with copyright. it's still plagiarism.
no it's not. it's an academic crime.
since the defendant is also a capitalist firm, I can see the similarities, but if someone were to simply be liberating the information, I don't see that as stealing.