Facts aren't protected by copyright. Regurgitating facts about a thing is in no way illegal, even if done by ai and done by ingested copyrighted material. I can legally make a website dedicated to stating only facts about Disney products (all other things the same) when prompted by questions of my users.
sean
joined 1 month ago
But regular people from countries which are sanctioned by countries do benefit from it, yet their benefit is still not worth it? I understand being critical and wary and vigilant, but to outright deny its usefulness for people with little options outside of official government sanctioned forms of economic power? You've deemed their plight and cause as outweighed and tainted by the wealthy who they have zero control over.
If someone cried out "I need to engineer a web application and work with a whole group of people to bring it about" I happily would though because I'm an engineer even though I don't have a degree
I may be self-taught, but I love the field of programming computers and have studied it in my own free time. I happily call myself an engineer if the 99% of engineers coming out of uni and entering the job market can be called one.
We're still following the exponential curve of capitalism that leads to wealth disparity and corporate feudalism. Obviously not more of the same. No one is claiming we stopped at our current position, we are still driving down the road. That isn't changing today or tomorrow. The best we can hope for right now is people wanting socialism. That's all we can hope for.
Your disappointment is because you had unrealistic expectations of capitalism in America. This is par the fucking course.
Ah slavery okay a perfectly fine punishment in todays world
It pains me to see so many people ready and willing to beat up their Trump voting neighbor who fell for propaganda designed for them but not the Trump financing ceos
For the sake of my neighbors and their loved ones and their neighbors and loved ones, please stop permitting people to rule over them
This is the bit I'm responding to. This "mere fact" that you propose is not copyright infringement by facts I've stated. I'm not making claims to any of your other original statements
Verbatim reproduction may be copyright infringement, but that wasn't your original claim that I quoted and am responding to (I didn't make that clear earlier, that's on me).
"Apologies" for my autistic way of communicating (I'm autistic)